12.01.2013 Views

Introduction - Cinematography Mailing List

Introduction - Cinematography Mailing List

Introduction - Cinematography Mailing List

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

<strong>Introduction</strong><br />

This book consists of edited conversations between<br />

DP’s, Gaffer’s, their crew and equipment suppliers.<br />

As such it doesn’t have the same structure as a<br />

“normal” film reference book.<br />

The purpose of the CML is to promote the free<br />

exchange of ideas among fellow professionals -<br />

camera crews, manufacturers, rental houses and<br />

other related businesses.<br />

Some of the related professionals on the CML are<br />

people from Kodak, Arri, Aaton, Otto Nemenz,<br />

Clairmont, Ilford, Panavision, OpTex, Tiffen,<br />

Schneider, Fuji & other companies.<br />

We started with one list and 70 members in 1996,<br />

we now have, In addition to the original list aimed<br />

soley at professional cameramen, lists for assistant<br />

cameramen, docco’s, indies, video and basic<br />

cinematography. These have memberships varying<br />

from around 600 to over a thousand each.<br />

Page 1


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

<strong>Introduction</strong>.................................................................1<br />

Shooting at 25FPS in a 60Hz Environment...............6<br />

Shooting at 30 FPS....................................................23<br />

3D Moving Stills ........................................................50<br />

4*3 or 16*9................................................................64<br />

85 or 85B...................................................................76<br />

Time Code on Film....................................................94<br />

Arri Variable Primes................................................128<br />

Aerial Filming...........................................................133<br />

Baggage....................................................................149<br />

Bleach Bypass and related processes ...................164<br />

Blue V Green Screens..............................................181<br />

Borescopes, Probes & Frazier ................................208<br />

Bounce Lighting.......................................................221<br />

Colour Blindness .....................................................243<br />

Chinese Lanterns.....................................................255<br />

Cold Conditions.......................................................266<br />

Page 2


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

CP16.........................................................................284<br />

Complex Crane Moves............................................295<br />

Cross Processing.....................................................311<br />

Deep Focus..............................................................322<br />

Deserts & Backlight.................................................334<br />

Director & DP’s relationship..................................341<br />

Enhancing Filters.....................................................376<br />

Eyelights ...................................................................383<br />

Explosion Proof Shooting.......................................393<br />

Fluorescent Lights...................................................426<br />

Focusing...................................................................439<br />

Filming Smoke.........................................................466<br />

Green Screen (16mm).............................................472<br />

Gun Flashes .............................................................479<br />

Infra Red...................................................................487<br />

Interaction with Directors......................................500<br />

Invoices ....................................................................508<br />

Page 3


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jokes .........................................................................521<br />

Krasnagorsk.............................................................535<br />

Latensification .........................................................539<br />

Mattes.......................................................................554<br />

Meters.......................................................................563<br />

Monochrome............................................................615<br />

Moonlight.................................................................623<br />

Movies as Music ......................................................634<br />

Neons........................................................................661<br />

Night Interiors .........................................................666<br />

Night Shooting........................................................680<br />

Making a Rainbow...................................................690<br />

Scanning film negs for stills ..................................704<br />

Shooting 3 perf 35mm ...........................................714<br />

Safe Speeds for Ramps...........................................732<br />

Sunsets.....................................................................740<br />

Tilt & Shift Lenses ...................................................752<br />

Page 4


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Time-lapse...............................................................762<br />

Tropicalisation.........................................................784<br />

TV Screens...............................................................792<br />

Ultra High Speeds....................................................805<br />

Varicon.....................................................................820<br />

White Backgrounds .................................................831<br />

Women (close-ups & lighting)...............................838<br />

X-Rays......................................................................850<br />

Page 5


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Shooting at 25FPS in a 60Hz<br />

Environment<br />

Hello, An upcoming job requires 25fps shot in the<br />

States. The question is what is a flicker free<br />

shutter angle? 144 degrees? Someone has<br />

suggested 150 degrees, which isn’t an actual<br />

setting, is it?<br />

There will be xenon in the show and Varilites; it’s a<br />

concert music video.<br />

Also, what about going to 50fps?<br />

Thanks,<br />

Harry Dawson<br />

Yes, 150° is to be used for 60Hz HMI at 25fps:<br />

(1/25 s. x 150/360 = 1/60 s.)<br />

144° is used to shoot NTSC CRT screens at 24fps:<br />

(1/24 s. x 144/360 = 1/60 s.)<br />

Which isn’t an actual setting, is it?<br />

Page 6


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

This shutter -opening angle is available on<br />

XTRprod’s and the latest SR-3’s.<br />

Jean-Pierre Beauviala<br />

With intermittent sources (HMI, HTI, magnetic<br />

ballast fluorescent, etc) you can shoot 25 fps at 75<br />

or 150-degree shutter. Xenon’s are DC constant<br />

arc sources and will not flicker at any frame rate.<br />

The Varilites are probably HTI sources with<br />

magnetic ballast’s so you WOULD have to pay<br />

attention, as you would with any of the non<br />

incandescent theatrical follow spots EXCEPT for any<br />

of the Strong Xenon Super Troopers which are<br />

xenon, DC, and therefore non-flickering. If you<br />

are working off generator power, there is another<br />

thing that you can do.<br />

Most 60Hz generators will not function at 50Hz<br />

properly (20% underspeed is to far from “home” for<br />

them) but they will almost always run at<br />

62.5Hz...and at 62.5Hz, you can shoot 25 fps with<br />

impunity. I have not actually tried this myself, but<br />

the late Bernie Grubeman of Camera Mart NY<br />

Page 7


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

convinced me of this back in 1980 or so and I have<br />

heard other people HAVE done it. I hope this is<br />

helpful information. Obviously if you can go to a<br />

lighting rental house that has Varilight’s and shoot<br />

a short test this would be a GOOD idea.<br />

By the way, 150-degree shutter will work both for<br />

25fps and for 50 fps. At 25fps, 150 degree is<br />

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

degree is 1/120 th sec.<br />

Mark<br />

>Hello, An upcoming job requires 25fps shot in<br />

the States.<br />

Silly question but why not shoot at 24fps? The<br />

Americans do it all the time and then send their<br />

stuff over here for TX at 25fps. Looks and sounds<br />

fine -<br />

Kind Regards,<br />

Shangara Singh.<br />

Page 8


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Harry;<br />

Others told you that 150 degree shutter at 25fps is<br />

the way to go ... btw. 150-degree shutter and 25<br />

fps is also the perfect combination to shoot NTSC<br />

monitors w/o having to sync. At that combination<br />

there simply isn’t a roll bar ... but trying to get<br />

exactly 150 degrees can be a problem...<br />

While testing this combination with a Platinum<br />

Panastar I had better “luck” setting the shutter to<br />

150 using the scribe marks on the back of the<br />

shutter itself (visible after pulling the movement)<br />

vs. using the digital shutter display. When I asked<br />

Panavision about it, the mechanical engineers said<br />

their marks were more accurate, while of course<br />

the electronics people said that their digital display<br />

should have been more accurate...?<br />

Arri says their digital display is completely<br />

accurate, however when we tried the test using a<br />

535A and inputting the shutter angle via the CCU<br />

computer link, the test footage showed that<br />

something was slightly off...?<br />

DP, Gary Thieltges (spelling?) who seemingly<br />

“discovered” this combination because he shoots a<br />

lot of European commercials at 25 fps, apparently<br />

Page 9


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

had Arri Burbank add a 150 degree “notch” to his<br />

camera(s).<br />

If the shutter is slightly off, you will start to see a<br />

few white or black (depending in which direction its<br />

off) dots in a line in your footage. These are the<br />

beginning of the out of sync line forming. Certainly<br />

better then a solid line.<br />

I don’t know how exact the 150-degree shutter<br />

setting has to be for your application with lights....<br />

Even using the handy RCU control unit, you should<br />

be able to very accurately dial in 150 degrees with<br />

either an Arri 435ES or 535A camera.<br />

Mako Kowai<br />

Since the mirror shutter of the 535A and 435ES can<br />

be set to any value between 11.2 and 180 degrees,<br />

150 degrees is not a problem on those cameras<br />

either.<br />

Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative<br />

Arriflex<br />

Page 10


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

It seems to me that using an NTSC monitor to<br />

“calibrate” a variable shutter to achieve 150<br />

degrees for 50 fps shooting in a 60 Hz world as<br />

described by Mako is a very accurate way to go,<br />

since you can see slight inaccuracies as “time drift”<br />

as a roll bar either moves up or down the screen.<br />

Wish I had thought of that as a test protocol.<br />

Mark<br />

I still can’t figure out why people going to the<br />

states shoot at 25fps and not 24fps when all the<br />

cameras that I know of (not so sure of the 16 BL,<br />

though) can shoot at either rate and the transfer<br />

facilities can t/f at 24/25fps.<br />

Someone put me out of my misery, please - I keep<br />

hoping for a shoot in the states and, who knows, it<br />

may happen tomorrow so it would be good to<br />

know!<br />

Page 11


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Shangara Singh.<br />

Certainly dialog can be transferred off-speed, but<br />

if you are shooting sync music (e.g. music video)<br />

material the speed difference is enough to change<br />

the speed of the song so that it would not cut from<br />

“25 for 25” and “24 for 25” shots...the music would<br />

speed up and slow down like an early cassette<br />

machine.<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

Good idea, but remember you’ll have to wait for<br />

the lab to process what you shoot because your<br />

eye won’t see the same thing through your finder.<br />

John Duclos<br />

In terms of phasing, of course, you can’t see what<br />

you will get, but in terms of speed, you should be<br />

Page 12


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

able to see the roll bar going one way or the other<br />

in the viewfinder ...if it isn’t moving up or down the<br />

frame you have the right shutter angle/speed<br />

combo. Since all you need in order to avoid flicker<br />

with the lighting fixtures is the right speed/angle<br />

combo as opposed to the additional issue of phase<br />

when actually shooting monitors or rephotographing<br />

film, it seems to me that you would<br />

be home free. Having said that, I think I need to<br />

run down to Clairmont or somewhere and borrow a<br />

body and a monitor to test my cockamamie theory.<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

Dumb question, but aren’t you really calibrating it<br />

to 59.94 then? I mean, plenty close, and a great<br />

clever idea—but not 60Hz? Actually, better than<br />

60Hz if you are shooting monitors...<br />

Jeff Kreines<br />

Page 13


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I was wondering if anyone would bring that up...I<br />

think you would be close enough for lights, but I’m<br />

not sure without testing...I guess the whole issue is<br />

how to set a variable shutter accurately to 150<br />

degrees...we have to assume that a crystal motor<br />

driven at 25fps will actually be running at 25fps<br />

(remember when sound men all carried P.O.M’s?)<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

I’ll be at Otto Nemenz tomorrow anyway. I’ll try<br />

playing with my 435 at 25 fps, a monitor and the<br />

RCU plus and minusing around 150 degrees<br />

through the finder and the gate...<br />

Mako Kowai<br />

Oh, darn! I would invite myself along to see what<br />

happens but I will be in the GREATER PACOIMA<br />

Page 14


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

METROPLEX in 8 perf purgatory...Please let us know<br />

what you discover<br />

Mark<br />

Try it, Mark, and you’ll find that 25fps and 150<br />

degrees on an NTSC monitor will not give you a<br />

stationary roll bar. What it does give you is 1/60<br />

second exposure time (one field of video) on film<br />

only.<br />

Your eye gets its image from the 180 degree, fixed<br />

segment of mirror on the shutter which =1/50<br />

second. This will appear as a rolling, bright band<br />

running through the screen.<br />

John Duclos<br />

Technical Manager - Arri Media<br />

Good point...at the very least I would have to sight<br />

through the gate so that I was looking at 150<br />

degree...and switch on and off until I could see the<br />

vertical interval band and then see which way it<br />

Page 15


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

was drifting...Never mind, it seemed like a great<br />

idea at the time:-)<br />

Does anyone still rent P.O.M’s? I don’t recall, but if<br />

there were a setting that cycled the LED’s at 60 Hz,<br />

you could check your shutter that way, but since<br />

the device was designed to check speed for<br />

reference to sound, I suppose it only cycles with<br />

respect to 24 frames or 25 frames, not necessarily<br />

50Hz or 60Hz. Any one know?<br />

Mark<br />

Ideal frame rate/shutter angle for 60 cycle<br />

fluorescent tubes is 24fps/144 degrees (or 30fps<br />

and 180 degrees or 33.33 fps and 200 degrees),<br />

but we regularly get away with filming normal<br />

fluorescent tubes at 24 fps at 180/200 degree<br />

shutters.<br />

At 25 fps the ideal shutter is 150 degrees. But if<br />

your camera can’t be set for 150 degrees (SR3) are<br />

you going to be OK at 25fps and 180 degrees?<br />

Would that be better then 25 fps at 144 degrees...?<br />

Page 16


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Wouldn’t it be better to have two pulses plus (180<br />

degrees) rather then not getting at least 2 pulses<br />

(144 degrees)?<br />

Can anyone predict how bad the fluorescent flicker<br />

will be if you can’t film at 25 fps and 150<br />

degrees.... ?<br />

Mako Kowai<br />

I had a film test done at a rental house on Friday to<br />

test filming an NTSC TV source at 150 degree and<br />

25 fps. Supposedly with this combination one<br />

should not have to do any phasing since there<br />

should be no scan line.<br />

Looking through the camera (Arri 435ES/180<br />

degree mirror) viewfinder and through the aperture<br />

gate (pressure plate removed, “magic” frosted<br />

“scotch”<br />

Tape over the aperture to act as a ground glass) at<br />

a TV monitor receiving an over the air signal with<br />

the camera running at 25 fps and at and around<br />

150 degrees revealed a rolling soft edge dark<br />

diagonal band.<br />

A call was made to DP Gary Thieltges (who<br />

“discovered” this shutter/fps combination) who<br />

Page 17


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

said yes you will see this band but it won’t<br />

photograph...<br />

Apparently there will be a thin scan line every 7 tth<br />

(8 th ?) frame but it won’t be noticeable during<br />

normal viewing.<br />

The monitor was filmed at 25 fps/150 degrees and<br />

at 25 fps with the shutter being slowly changed<br />

between 148 and 152 degrees with the RCU control<br />

unit in the shot so that the degree settings will be<br />

visible in the footage.<br />

A 25 fps test was also shot with a MovieCam SL<br />

since it has a mechanical indent for 150 degrees.<br />

We don’t know if the resolution of the Arri RCU<br />

display is accurate enough to set at 150.15<br />

degrees. This would be the actual shutter angle<br />

needed at 25 fps with the NTSC monitor scanning<br />

at 59.94 cycles. (shutter angle = frame rate times 3<br />

times 2.002 “pulses”/exposure cycle)<br />

Can a mechanical shutter indent be made<br />

accurately and practically at 150.15 degrees...?<br />

The transfer will be done on Monday and hopefully<br />

we can post the results on Tuesday when I get back<br />

into town from my location shoot.<br />

Since this thread was started by a question<br />

concerning shooting in the US at 25 fps for the<br />

European market, it was interesting to see a 9<br />

Page 18


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

camera prep taking place at the same rental house,<br />

for concert footage being shot here for Europe.<br />

The cameras are going to run at 25 fps and 144<br />

degree shutter.<br />

The question is why 144 degree shutter? With this<br />

combination the DP must be using tungsten [or<br />

square wave HMI’s?] [it’s indoors] light ... but then<br />

why not have the shutters set a 180 degrees for<br />

maximum through put? Maybe he wants that<br />

minimal amount of extra strobing/extra<br />

sharpness?<br />

The nine cameras are Arri SR3’s, whose shutters<br />

can not be set to 150 degrees.<br />

There will also be one Aaton XTR (whose shutter<br />

can be set at 150 degrees) as the “A” crane camera<br />

w/ 800’ mags.<br />

Mako Kowai<br />

I haven’t seen the footage/transfer myself but I<br />

talked to the tech's at Otto Nemenz Int. camera<br />

rental house in Hollywood who kindly shot our<br />

25fps/150 degree test of a NTSC monitor.<br />

The footage taken with the Arri 435ES at 25<br />

fps/150 degrees was almost perfect.<br />

Page 19


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

After repeated close up viewing of the transfer one<br />

could make out the very slight beginnings of a line<br />

- a string of dots.<br />

The footage where they slowly altered the shutter<br />

angle from about 148 to 152 degrees showed a<br />

constantly changing (in width) line that<br />

disappeared at about 150 degrees and then<br />

immediately reappeared. Apparently the way they<br />

photographed the RCU display made it difficult to<br />

see the read out.<br />

The footage taken with the MovieCam SL with it’s<br />

shutter set to a mechanical indent of 150 degrees<br />

showed a very obvious bar.<br />

They are going to redo the test using a number of<br />

different 435 bodies and now setting the shutter to<br />

150.1 and 150.2 degree. The RCU does not allow a<br />

setting of 150.15, which is the “perfect” shutter<br />

angle for 59.94 scan.<br />

We’ve found that the removing the bar completely<br />

requires an extremely precise shutter, but that<br />

perhaps the electronically inputted shutter angle<br />

with the 435/535 family of Arri cameras is accurate<br />

enough to allow filming of NTSC monitors without<br />

any phasing.<br />

Page 20


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The mechanical indents on the Moviecam’s are not<br />

accurate enough to allow using this “emergency”<br />

procedure.<br />

I’ll keep everyone posted on any further tests.<br />

Mako Kowai<br />

I’d like to publicly send Mako an enormous thank<br />

you for this information.<br />

I’ve already made use of it :-)<br />

I’m shooting a commercial for a chain of computer<br />

stores at the moment.<br />

My biggest problem on the main store location was<br />

that I had to use the florrie fittings, they’re well<br />

featured in shot, the roof is a suspended one and it<br />

wouldn’t support the weight of the 72 Kino Flo 4’<br />

4banks I would have to use.<br />

I had to use daylight corrected florrie tubes<br />

instead. This meant that at anything other than 25,<br />

50 or 100 I would have flicker problems.<br />

Unfortunately the shot was full of working<br />

computers all running at different speeds. I was<br />

able to adjust these all to the same speed but there<br />

Page 21


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

was still going to be a flicker problem as I couldn’t<br />

lock the camera running speed to the monitors.<br />

We solved this by setting all the monitors to VGA<br />

and 60Hz, this actually measured at 59.94, with my<br />

B&S meter, thanks Bill.<br />

We then set the shutter to 150 to allow for the<br />

monitors at 60 Hz, the 25 fps was safe with the<br />

florries at any shutter angle.<br />

We checked by running the camera at 29.96 and<br />

various speeds around this, no flicker, some small<br />

bars, but hey! a 10mm lens and a swooping crane<br />

will cover those.<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Page 22


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Shooting at 30 FPS<br />

Those of my friends fr om the former and original<br />

AOL Hollywood online Forum will remember how I<br />

LOVE to stir the pot. You guys really bit. It's great<br />

to have a discussion like this. And I really believe<br />

the essence of what I said about 24fps and 30fps.<br />

In fact I better post the article I referred to in my<br />

first post on this subject.<br />

Of course the frame rate isn't the only component<br />

that makes up the difference between film and<br />

tape. Many of the comments about the 3:2 pull<br />

down and refresh rates of 60 (or 50) images like<br />

Showscan or normal video were very cogent. But<br />

have a butchers at what I was thinking about and<br />

then let’s talk...<br />

By the way, I promise that I didn't name it ""The<br />

Poster Theory"" the editor did. Also please<br />

remember it's a few years old.<br />

Film vs. Video: The Poster Theory<br />

by Steven Poster, ASC<br />

(Cinematographer Steven Poster served as director<br />

of photography in 1990 on an experimental high<br />

definition television dramatic project for NHK titled<br />

Coastal Frames. The production was recorded with<br />

Page 23


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

prototype Panavision/Sony 1125/60 HDTV<br />

equipment in Bodega Bay, CA. It was during this<br />

experience that Poster began to reconsider the<br />

widely-held notion that video should be made to<br />

look like film. Among Poster's 16 feature film<br />

credits are Someone To Watch Over Me, Life Stinks<br />

and Rocky V. He was also director of photography<br />

on Madonna's Like A Prayer video and such<br />

longform television projects as Testament and I'll<br />

Take Manhattan.)<br />

Since the day video was invented, the question of<br />

how to make it look like film has come up<br />

repeatedly. I believe that film and video are two<br />

separate mediums and should be thought of as<br />

such. There is a need for both of these styles, and<br />

the two can definitely work side-by-side without<br />

one trying to dominate the other.<br />

As I perceive it, there are productions that are best<br />

done on tape and there are productions best done<br />

on film.<br />

News and sports, special events like variety shows<br />

and concerts, news-based and contemporary<br />

documentaries, industrials and educational<br />

programs are best done on tape. Anything that<br />

needs immediate presentation is obviously best<br />

done on tape. Soap operas, believe it or not, are<br />

Page 24


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

best done on tape. I'll get into why I think that is<br />

true a little later.<br />

Film, however, is best for any storytelling or<br />

narrative production. Historical documentaries, I<br />

think, are best done on film. Commercials are best<br />

done on film. Anything that is ""fantasy-based"" is<br />

best done on film. Why do I say this? Marshall<br />

McLuhan, the great media visionary, defined the<br />

difference between the hot medium and the cool<br />

medium as the audience's use of the imagination<br />

as opposed to the direct visual implant. I have a<br />

theory about this . . .<br />

Film is shot at 24 frames per second. At that<br />

speed, there is a certain amount of blur in the<br />

images. There is also a brief time between the<br />

frames when there is no image at all and there is a<br />

little perception of flicker. Though this film process<br />

may sound technically flawed, in fact, these<br />

""imperfections"" cause the audience to use their<br />

imagination to fill in the blanks of the missing<br />

information.<br />

Tape, as we know, is 30 frames per second or two<br />

interlaced fields resulting in 60 images a second.<br />

There is a technique called Showscan, invented by<br />

a genius named Douglas Trumbull, which involves<br />

filming at 60 frames per second and projecting at<br />

Page 25


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

60 frames per second. This number was not<br />

arbitrarily chosen. Trumbull did psychological and<br />

physiological tests on all kinds of audiences and<br />

determined that 60 images a second is the<br />

maximum visual information that can be<br />

transmitted through the optic nerve to the brain.<br />

Watching Showscan resulted in a direct visual<br />

implant without any perceivable blank spaces. If<br />

the rate is raised to more than 60 images a second,<br />

the audience won't get any improvement in image<br />

transference. So 60 frames is the cut-off. I believe<br />

a format like Showscan negates the use of the<br />

audience's imagination. This refresh rate of 60<br />

images exactly relates to what is seen on a video<br />

screen. Therefore, when we see video images we're<br />

getting a direct implant of images; we are not<br />

having to use our imagination to fill in the blanks.<br />

This is little like the difference between radio<br />

drama and television. In radio drama, the audience<br />

has to completely imagine the setting and<br />

completely imagine what the people look like.<br />

<strong>List</strong>eners must engage the imagination in the<br />

storytelling process. For this reason, I feel any<br />

fantasy-based or story-based information is best<br />

viewed on film. The 24 frame per second film<br />

imaging system does not give the audience all of<br />

Page 26


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the visual information. Audience members are<br />

engaged in the storytelling process because of the<br />

need to fill in the blanks with imagination.<br />

Now, what about soap operas? Why do they work<br />

on video? Soap operas are made so that the<br />

audience can feel an immediate connection to the<br />

characters and feel that those characters are part<br />

of their daily lives. This is the reason that soap<br />

operas are best done on tape. It's best to visually<br />

implant that information directly so it feels like it's<br />

live and happening now.<br />

There have been continuing attempts to make tape<br />

look like film. I think this is the wrong approach.<br />

Each medium should be used for what it does best.<br />

Dr. Edwin Land, the inventor of instant<br />

photography, had the idea he was giving a new<br />

medium to the world. He wasn't just doing<br />

something old in a new way. I think that is the<br />

approach we should take with the video technology<br />

of today and with high definition video in the<br />

future.<br />

As I just re-read this I realized that it is a<br />

simplified version of a speech that I gave for the<br />

High Vision Society in Japan in 1991 (about 300<br />

people involved in the development of Hi Def). It of<br />

course raised a lot of eyebrows there. Many of the<br />

Page 27


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

(Non- Sony) engineers and scientists and designers<br />

really got it.<br />

PS - For those of you who don't understand the<br />

word Mishagass (however it's spelled) - Tough...<br />

Steven Poster, ASC<br />

The fact that the tape looks much like the 16mm is<br />

a good argument for shooting 35mm all of the<br />

time. Besides you degrade the artistic content of<br />

any narrative piece by shooting at 30FPS or on<br />

tape. Refer to my article in back of the American<br />

Cinematographer Video Manual.<br />

Given the choice between panning slowly and the<br />

look of film at 30fps I'll take panning slowly.<br />

One can overcrank, etc. Conceded there are some<br />

compromises. But the rhythmic quality of film at 24<br />

fps is I think, pleasurable, hypnotic. I actually feel<br />

this is true for theatrical as well as TV shooting.<br />

18 fps? I'd say that would be fine with me :) ..but I<br />

already take enough flack for using a Steenbeck<br />

and printing - film dailies.<br />

Page 28


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

In the pre-sound days with the projector motors on<br />

rheostats, speed cue sheets were apparently<br />

shipped to projectionists.. (Whether they followed<br />

them closely is debatable) and I suppose in the<br />

best of all possible worlds we would have<br />

projection speed options - actually one thing<br />

interesting in the proposed 'HDTV' standards are<br />

options in frame rate, (I think) so this is not purely<br />

hypothetical musing, I believe it touches on some<br />

very critical issues.<br />

It is certainly not the only significant difference and<br />

I don't think that Steven Poster is saying it is the<br />

'only' significant difference. But I would agree with<br />

him- 30 fps film on video brings out the aspects of<br />

video that you yourself do not like. Vs. film's<br />

""organic image"".<br />

Note that everyone in the ""film look"" business<br />

reduces 30 > 24 (and of course back up to 30) in<br />

an effort to convince us it 'looks like film'<br />

Sam Wells<br />

With respect to the increased cost of film stock &<br />

processing related to 30 v 24fps, there are some<br />

Page 29


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

projects that simply cannot afford the added<br />

expense. However, this difference is not significant<br />

when compared to the overall costs of most<br />

contemporary productions.<br />

It is true that 30fps is not an absolute fix, but it<br />

does significantly minimize the problem.<br />

As for the issue of the 24fps ""rhythm"", this again<br />

appears to be more an issue of a frame rate<br />

seeming to be ""comfortable"" simply because we<br />

have lived with it for so many years.<br />

And finally, the difference in frame rate from 24 to<br />

30 fps merely requires a 1/4 stop increase in light<br />

level. This is hardly a major issue.<br />

Michael Siegel<br />

I'm with Michael Siegel - I love the look of film at<br />

29.97fps! As a colorist I've heard both points of<br />

view, but my eyes are my witnesses that I<br />

personally prefer film shot and transferred at 30.<br />

Not only is it a better sampling rate, but the<br />

elimination of the pulldown makes the motion<br />

much more fluid. Clients usually notice the<br />

difference if they've shot a lot and transferred at 30<br />

Page 30


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

for a while - their eyes get used to it so that if they<br />

shot a scene at 24 and we drop to that speed, they<br />

clearly see the jerkiness of the pulldown.<br />

Because of this, I always recommend shooting<br />

tabletops at 30, or scenes which will have a lot of<br />

motion and/or picket-fencing. Generally it's O K to<br />

shoot talking heads at 24, as that's not a big deal<br />

of movement.<br />

There are those who contend that film transferred<br />

on a Rank at 30 is degraded due to a smaller<br />

flying-spot patch on the tube. They claim that the<br />

reduced patch size enlarges irregularities of the<br />

tube face. Fortunately, this effect is ameliorated in<br />

the new thick-face tubes, which are subject to less<br />

surface degradation over their lifetimes. Then<br />

again, CCD machines work fine at both speeds.<br />

Anyway, I generally like 30 when the scene has a<br />

lot of motion.<br />

I guess there are a lot of opinions, but it's all a<br />

matter of personal taste,<br />

Bob Lovejoy<br />

Page 31


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

There are a couple of things that deserve to be<br />

addressed here. The first issue Michael brought up<br />

is the strobe factor.<br />

Shooting at 30 fps doesn't eliminate the problem. It<br />

lessens the parameters, but it still exists, and there<br />

are other compromises none of which I believe<br />

have very much to do with tradition, but rather<br />

with an aesthetic that many others on this list have<br />

expressed.<br />

The perception of motion or the motion blur is the<br />

key issue here. Some believe (as I do), the blur at<br />

24fps helps rather than hinders the perception of<br />

motion.<br />

If image sharpness (and not cost) is the sole<br />

concern, why not shoot 65mm Showscan at 60 fps<br />

and end the argument?<br />

Obviously it is not practical, nor is shooting 25%<br />

more film at 30 fps in most situations, particularly<br />

if the aesthetic gain does not out weigh the<br />

economics.<br />

There is nothing I hate more than an opening<br />

sequence in a film, or a grand scene that opens<br />

strobing all over the place (and some of the<br />

greatest masters . . . and operators . . . in the<br />

business are guilty of this), frankly shooting 30 fps<br />

is not the way to rectify the problem.<br />

Page 32


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

OvrExpose1@aol.com<br />

I hate to rain on the parade but I can tell you from<br />

first hand experience that (other than on<br />

commercials) any question of 24 v 30 will be<br />

quickly overruled once a Producer calculates the<br />

cost.<br />

This entire argument is highly entertaining but,<br />

unfortunately, it is merely an exercise in debating<br />

prowess.<br />

I agree completely with your point about costs -<br />

however, I think this debate is more over the look<br />

of the two frame rates rather than the costs.<br />

Jon Mendelssohn<br />

If you think the increase in cost of 30/24 is<br />

insignificant to a Producer /Line Producer/UPM you<br />

are sadly mistaken. In many cases I hear guys<br />

negotiating over points of a cent per foot.<br />

Page 33


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The only way to slip 30fps into dramatic<br />

production is to go to 3 perf pulldown, thereby<br />

giving the same overall stock costs. This very rarely<br />

happens (although it is happening on some three<br />

film camera sitcoms) for myriad reasons.<br />

Whilst most of these arguments are technically<br />

accurate they have little bearing on Production.<br />

You could argue till you are blue in the face but the<br />

cost differential will win over the quality differential<br />

every time.<br />

Rob Draper, ACS<br />

I feel that one cannot compare 30fps to 24fps --<br />

the two rates look totally different and should be<br />

applied depending on the needs of the artist. I will<br />

say this -- 30fps cinematography requires a great<br />

deal more care than 24fps. My experience has<br />

taught me to light 30fps with more diffusion and a<br />

lower contrast ratio - anyway, that's just my take<br />

on it. 30fps is a great format when lit properly-to<br />

say that it looks ""bad"" or ""just like video"" to me<br />

is just nonsense. One has to know how to use a<br />

format before judging it.<br />

Page 34


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jon Mendelssohn<br />

Well... I just can't buy that at all. For the very<br />

reasons I cited previously, 16mm (24fps, 29.97 or<br />

anything else) looks nothing like video. The mere<br />

fact that video is shot at 30fps (interlaced at that!)<br />

can't possibly make up for the myriad of other<br />

shortcomings.<br />

That's like comparing an F-117 and a Cessna<br />

simply because they both fly! Yes they do... but in<br />

very different ways.<br />

30fps looks far smoother than 24, and the<br />

""stuttering"" problem of 24fps is significantly<br />

reduced. Every time I see a scene projected on a<br />

screen that suffers from that 24fps ""stutter"" it<br />

immediately disrupts any ""suspension of<br />

disbelief"" and subsequently my sense of personal<br />

involvement with the narrative. I fail to see how<br />

severing the audiences emotional participation by<br />

abruptly reminding them that they are not truly<br />

involved in the story can possibly contribute a<br />

thing to improving the filmgoing experience.<br />

Page 35


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Again, and with all due respect, IMHO all I see here<br />

is the need by many cinematographers to cling to a<br />

traditional frame rate since ""its what we have<br />

always done and always intend to do"".<br />

Michael Siegel<br />

)) 30Fps film will always look like video.<br />

The fact that the tape looks much like the 16mm is<br />

a good argument for shooting 35mm all of the<br />

time. Besides you degrade the artistic content of<br />

any narrative piece by shooting at 30FPS((<br />

Amazing how true it is. 30 fps film (or 29.97) looks<br />

awful!<br />

Jeff Kreines<br />

I'm with Michael Siegel - I love the look of film at<br />

29.97fps! As a colorist I've heard both points of<br />

view, but my eyes are my witnesses that I<br />

personally prefer film shot and transferred at 30.<br />

Page 36


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Not only is it a better sampling rate, but the<br />

elimination of the pulldown makes the motion<br />

much more fluid.<br />

Clients usually notice the difference if they've shot<br />

a lot and transferred at 30 for a while - their eyes<br />

get used to it so that if they shot a scene at 24 and<br />

we drop to that speed, they clearly see the<br />

jerkiness of the pulldown.<br />

Because of this, I always recommend shooting<br />

tabletops at 30, or scenes which will have a lot of<br />

motion and/or picket-fencing. Generally it's OK to<br />

shoot talking heads at 24, as that's not a big deal<br />

of movement.<br />

There are those who contend that film transferred<br />

on a Rank at 30 is degraded due to a smaller<br />

flying-spot patch on the tube. They claim that the<br />

reduced patch size enlarges irregularities of the<br />

tube face.<br />

Fortunately, this effect is ameliorated in the new<br />

thick-face tubes, which are subject to less surface<br />

degradation over their lifetimes. Then again, CCD<br />

machines work fine at both speeds.<br />

Anyway, I generally like 30 when the scene has a<br />

lot of motion.<br />

I guess there are a lot of opinions, but it's all a<br />

matter of personal taste,<br />

Page 37


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Bob Lovejoy<br />

..light with more diffusion.. Is that an attempt to<br />

downplay the 'static' unchanging quality of 30 fps?<br />

A cynic might say that by the above logic you are<br />

trying to get some of what 24 fps gives you in the<br />

first place! I would agree with you that (despite my<br />

own preferences) that there may still be a payoff (in<br />

some cases) with 30fps; and if the price of<br />

admission is more diffusion and a lower contrast<br />

ratio, why not?<br />

But I suspect, hope at least that a higher def video<br />

system would allow for more choices, lessen the<br />

need to 'texturize' your 30 fps film, or allow - the<br />

rhythmic qualities of film @ 24 to come through if<br />

that be the choice.<br />

Again I would say that for me, the '3-2 pulldown' in<br />

NTSC/60 transfers actually helps preserve the<br />

rhythmic quality of film.<br />

Having said all that, one could take the opposite<br />

tack:<br />

Page 38


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I saw a movie about 6 years ago called ""Julia and<br />

Julia"". It was shot on the Sony 1125 system for<br />

theatrical release, but I saw it on my (normal) TV.<br />

It was the 'clearest' and most 'video-y' video I'd<br />

ever seen, outside of trade show demos. And<br />

seeing it on my home set made that effect seem<br />

quite surreal, enhanced I suspect by its sort of de<br />

Chirico exterior compositions (a deliberate<br />

production design and framing/composition choice<br />

I'm sure).<br />

The walls for instance of the exterior architecture<br />

were so 'unchanging' in their appearance (sort of<br />

like glossy acrylic paintings) that it was almost<br />

startling when people or cars or whatever moved in<br />

front of them. It was an interesting visual<br />

experience insofar as it was SO ""un filmlike""!<br />

It did not make me a convert, however.<br />

Sam Wells<br />

Okay, what is different between film and tape when<br />

the final release is on tape?<br />

1. Resolution.<br />

Page 39


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

This is a fairly minimal difference, and while it's<br />

possible to get better resolution on a film chain<br />

than on a conventional color camera, the end<br />

viewer never sees it anyway. So who cares?<br />

2. Motion artefacts.<br />

This is what most people notice first when they see<br />

stuff originated on film. If you go to 30 fps<br />

operation, they go away, thank God, and the<br />

improvement is significant. I consider motion<br />

artefacts to be a disadvantage of film, not an<br />

advantage, but a lot of people seem to like them.<br />

3. Grey scale.<br />

This is where film really shines. There is a much<br />

wider scale, and this is visible on the final video<br />

output. Even more importantly, when you go from<br />

the wide scale medium to a medium with a reduced<br />

grey scale like tape, you have a lot of freedom to<br />

adjust things. There is more shadow detail and<br />

more highlight detail, and you can tweak the<br />

midpoint up and down a lot without it being<br />

visible, like it is with videotape originated material.<br />

Now, this said, let's cut it out with the stupid film<br />

vs. tape debates. I've been seeing them on the old<br />

filmmakers' mailing list for ten years and I don't<br />

want to see them here.<br />

Page 40


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Scott Dorsey<br />

It's interesting that you would point this out, as it's<br />

one of the current ""selling points"" for devices<br />

such as the Spirit Datacine and/or high-def video<br />

origination, not to mention other options such as<br />

the HR1440 telecine.<br />

The concept of oversampling providing more<br />

flexibility in a down conversion has always been<br />

one of the primary advantages of film origination.<br />

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.<br />

The first part of this I don't want to even get into.<br />

But I do take exception to the overall concept.<br />

I'm a director/cameraman in a small market.. We<br />

shoot hundreds of thousands of feet of 16mm film<br />

each year. It is all for commercials. Most of it is<br />

shot at 30 fps.<br />

Page 41


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Our reels are enthusiastically received at agencies<br />

all over the country, from large NY agencies to<br />

smaller creative shops in mid-sized markets.<br />

The single most-often hear comment is, ""I can't<br />

believe that is 16mm"". This comment is never,<br />

never meant to be taken, ""it looks like tape"". It is<br />

always said in belief that it ""looks like 35"".<br />

Really, other than trying to do good lighting and<br />

having a great colorist, we don't do anything any<br />

different than most people. But we always shoot<br />

our 16mm at 30 fps. And our 16mm NEVER LOOKS<br />

LIKE TAPE.<br />

Yes, I think this will be another thread. Later today,<br />

I'll post a document that is widely circulated by a<br />

NY colorist, The Anti 30 FPS"" theory. Then later,<br />

maybe my own technical rebuttal.<br />

Jim Dollarhide<br />

Now HDTV is a touchy subject here because many<br />

in the states have fought and lost (as I have said all<br />

along) to getting any of the standards (e.g. Non<br />

interlacing, 2:1 ratio, etc).<br />

Page 42


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The reason they have lost this battle and the<br />

reason why the digital future is more like science<br />

fiction has to do with one word-money. The<br />

original propionate for HDTV is the EIA.<br />

Who is the EIA? The ten manufactures of TV sets.<br />

They single-handedly started the whole thing.<br />

That is why we are now talking about HDTV.<br />

We will get a compromise though. It's digital TV, as<br />

it offers the TV manufactures the ability to throw<br />

away 240 million perfectly good sets.<br />

The broadcasters have to spend to re-outfit, but<br />

they will not have to spend on HDTV and the Gov.<br />

is ""giving"" them the free radio space so that is<br />

like money in the bank.<br />

We as cinematographers who thrive for quality<br />

pictures get an ""almost"" 2:1 ratio so that is not<br />

bad.<br />

A valid argument was made by the ASC here, but<br />

this has nothing to do with quality.<br />

And digital will mean ""fantastic"" sound that I<br />

doubt anyone will really notice unless you tell<br />

them.<br />

The only one who suffers is our US economy<br />

because virtually all of the TV manufactures are<br />

from overseas. I remember when Sony came to the<br />

US 5 years ago. They went around shopping malls<br />

Page 43


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

here to do a side-by-side comparison of HDTV and<br />

""regular"" TV. Almost 80% of consumers who saw<br />

it picked the ""regular"" picture as being better. Oh<br />

there are some of you that will say the new sets are<br />

wider. That is good. But there are also some that<br />

will say they look better, but that is simply because<br />

you have been told that. And there are some of you<br />

that will tell me that this is the first step in the<br />

evolution of TVs.<br />

Well, this is the first step in the evolution in almost<br />

forty years. Oh sure NBC plans on equipping<br />

twenty stations with HDTV. I don't know if they will<br />

in the end, but HDTV would be nicer.<br />

See TV doesn’t evolve much, its too expensive. Its<br />

more like they'll make the change now that make<br />

everyone happy and that will be it for the next 40.<br />

WalterNY<br />

Remember that when we get digital TV we will have<br />

the opportunity to see 24 fps film shown on 24<br />

frame video...the end of 3-2 pulldown!<br />

However, we will also be able to see 30 fps film<br />

shown on 30 frame video!


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Since most people will be viewing digital TV via a<br />

decoder box attached to a (current) analog<br />

monitor, the monitor display will still be 29.97 FPS.<br />

Not to mention the likelihood that most<br />

broadcasters will adopt one of the 30 frame<br />

options for digital broadcast, if only to allow a mix<br />

of film and video originated programming. In the<br />

case of film origination, the 3:2 pulldown is<br />

removed when the MPEG encoding takes place<br />

(automatically, in most cases) in order to save<br />

bandwidth.<br />

The MPEG2 format contains a flag that identifies<br />

the data stream as 24 FPS material and the decoder<br />

reinserts 3:2 pulldown for display. That's how DVD<br />

works today.<br />

Looking at today's DVD is a very good preview of<br />

what digital broadcasting will hopefully accomplish<br />

within a few years. Besides, you don't really want to<br />

start viewing flickering 24FPS displays, do you??<br />

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.<br />

One needs to keep in mind that film shot and<br />

transferred to NTSC at 30fps cannot be transferred<br />

Page 45


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

to PAL using advanced 3:2 pulldown conversion<br />

technology such as ImageFIT, DEFT or TK3:2.<br />

This presents a major headache to the international<br />

distributor of the finished program due to the fact<br />

that linear interpolating converters such as ADAC<br />

are the only option for creating the necessary PAL<br />

masters from 30fps NTSC.<br />

Many of today's quality conscience program buyers<br />

will no longer accept programming which exhibits<br />

the temporal smearing and judder associated with<br />

linear conversions.<br />

Remember that with the exception of the United<br />

States, Japan, Canada and a few smaller markets,<br />

the vast majority of viewers around the world will<br />

be viewing the standards converted master.<br />

Take a close look at what these converters are<br />

going to do to your work prior to deciding to shoot<br />

30fps.<br />

Jeff Dewolde<br />

I have been following this 24-30fps/film -video<br />

tread (yes another film-video tread) with great<br />

interest and Steven certainly started a very good<br />

one there. This is what this mail group is all about.<br />

Page 46


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I certainly prefer to shoot film for all the reasons<br />

we all agree on so I won't repeat them all here.<br />

However, I am starting to do more and more video.<br />

Keep in mind that I am in a peculiar market. French<br />

Canadian productions are doomed from the onset<br />

to have a smaller market, mostly here in Quebec,<br />

most even have to be dubbed when sold in France<br />

and other francophones Europeans countries as<br />

our accent is apparently disturbing to our<br />

Europeans cousins. Therefore productions are<br />

highly subsidized and subject more and more to<br />

budget cuts.<br />

Three weeks ago a large productions company<br />

called me to a meeting and asked me to shoot a 13<br />

part mini-series. Five months of shooting over 120<br />

days of work (total budget around 11 millions<br />

CAN$, that's a lot here). The fee is as good as on<br />

any feature I could do, the script is good. It is on<br />

digital betacam. I agreed. I did not stop to think<br />

ooooh... it's video. Of course we get follow focus,<br />

serious mat box and all the film style gear and it is<br />

shot like a film, only the cameras (2) are different.<br />

Perhaps some among us have only shot 35mm for<br />

the past 10-20-30 years, that's great, maybe I<br />

wish I was in your shoes. Perhaps some can afford<br />

to turn down work like this. I know I can not. Here<br />

Page 47


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

in our smaller market that's the game. I believe I<br />

am getting a good reputation doing better video<br />

than others and that's getting me work. I always<br />

treat video with as much care as I would film while<br />

respecting the medium's shortcomings without<br />

letting them limit me.<br />

Just last week I was offered, but had to decline of<br />

course, another mini-series on digital betacam,<br />

and I was asked for another one about six weeks<br />

before. Is there a trend? Perhaps, and I am glad to<br />

take on the challenge. Just give me something with<br />

a lens at one end and a light if it gets dark and I'm<br />

a happy camper. Add a good dedicated crew,<br />

talented cast and a serious production company<br />

and all is A-OK for me.<br />

IMHO, it's not the container that matters but what's<br />

in it.<br />

Happy shooting to all... at all speeds and on all<br />

formats. Have fun...<br />

Daniel Villeneuve<br />

I couldn't agree with you more. I personally hate<br />

how 35mm film looks transferred at 30 fps, and<br />

16mm looks worse.<br />

Page 48


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

And to further the argument, advanced definition<br />

television is just around the corner. I read recently<br />

that the FCC is pushing the broadcasters hard to<br />

be on line broadcasting digital television signals by<br />

Christmas 1998. The broadcasters admit that<br />

about half of the 20 major markets will indeed be<br />

on line by Christmas '98.<br />

So, you're a producer and you shoot your show in<br />

NTSC video.... whatcha gonna do with it in a year<br />

and a half? 35mm film is higher resolution than<br />

any of the proposed advanced definition TV<br />

standards and will allow your product to look its<br />

absolute best well into the foreseeable future.<br />

To quote a long dead economist: ""There is the<br />

price, and then there is the cost.....""<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

Page 49


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

3D Moving Stills<br />

Just curious---if anyone has heard of a Camera<br />

able to lock motion of selected subjects within a<br />

single frame. I've been told of a monsterious and<br />

wonderful device invented by a guy named Dayton<br />

Taylor that does just that. It may have been used in<br />

a recent car commercial to show the<br />

manoeuvrability of the vehicle around girls on a<br />

scooter and a kid with a ball at an intersection...<br />

ring any bells?<br />

Leland Krane—<br />

Hi, there was an article entitled 'Virtual Camera<br />

Movement: The Way of the Future?' and was in Sept<br />

1996 issue. Interesting stuff, and there is someone<br />

in the UK using a similar technique, who we tried<br />

to get involved on a film shot last year,<br />

'Photographing Fairies'.<br />

Unfortunately he was busy, expensive, arrogant<br />

and unhelpful, so we just used the 435 and<br />

adapted our ideas. But it seems complex and time-<br />

consuming, and I suspect that only commercials<br />

Page 50


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and fairly large budget pictures could really afford<br />

it, unless you custom built a rig and explored the<br />

possibilities, in which case it would be time-<br />

consuming and complex, and you'd have to pay<br />

instead of the production company.......<br />

The gist of it is that you use a strip of still cameras,<br />

which are arranged around the (moving) subject in<br />

space. They are triggered simultaneously, and the<br />

resulting images transferred sequentially to 35mm<br />

film, or video or whatever. The result appears to be<br />

a tracking shot around a frozen subject, and has<br />

been described as having an almost 3D feel. It<br />

means you could track, say, 180 degrees around a<br />

popping balloon, or around an object or person in<br />

mid-flight or action.<br />

A fascinating idea. After all even high speed<br />

motion picture cameras take pictures sequentially,<br />

and time cannot be stopped. Using this technique,<br />

time is stopped but we, as the camera/observer,<br />

can move through space, albeit limited in range by<br />

the number and separation of the individual<br />

cameras.<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Page 51


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I think you refer to a technique called: Time<br />

Slicing", invented by Tim McMillan. So far<br />

everybody in this newsgroup refers to the system<br />

mentioned in the A.C. and showed on the "Shots"<br />

tape. Original a French idea using fifty stills<br />

camera.<br />

The good thing about "Time Slicing" is that it all<br />

takes place in camera. The camera can freeze a<br />

moment of time whilst continuously panning<br />

around it and without stopping, move the image<br />

back in to real time live action all in a single take!<br />

You can dolly with the camera and even hang it on<br />

a crane.<br />

I have seen some incredible shots on a showreel of<br />

"Live from Bermuda". Unfortunately I don't have a<br />

direct number for you, sorry.<br />

Bastiaan Houtkooper (N.S.C.)<br />

A few months ago there was an article in American<br />

Cinematographer about the system you're talking<br />

about. Sorry, don't know the issue and I just pulled<br />

in from a shoot at 2 am and am too beat tonight to<br />

dig it up. I've been thinking about it lately for a<br />

project and I've been meaning to track down the<br />

Page 52


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

article. If I can find it in the next few days I'll post<br />

the issue number.<br />

Mark Schlicher<br />

Taylor's rig, as described on American<br />

Cinematographer last spring, was an arrangement<br />

of still cameras.<br />

In essence, it is a line of still cameras with the<br />

shutters able to be triggered in whatever sequence<br />

is required. If one were to trigger each camera<br />

simultaneously, and then edit each frame together,<br />

the result would appear to be a "dolly" shot on a<br />

frozen moment in time.<br />

Others have tried this with varying degrees of<br />

success with a line of motion picture cameras. This<br />

results in a matrix of images, with the vertical axis<br />

of the matrix being a sequence in time (the film<br />

strip from one camera) and the horizontal axis a<br />

sequence in space (the same frame in time from<br />

each of the cameras).<br />

By selectively editing images from this matrix<br />

together, infinite choices of camera "motion" over<br />

variable moments can be made to manipulate the<br />

motion / time relationship.<br />

Page 53


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

That's it in a nutshell. The technique has been<br />

attempted on a recent car commercial and music<br />

video (can't remember the car make or musicians),<br />

and it is rumored to have been used on "Batman<br />

and Robin" for some Mr. Freeze shots (or was at<br />

least being considered at one point), and I know it<br />

was at least considered for an upcoming effects<br />

driven English feature production.<br />

I for one, don't really see much of a broad based<br />

application for this technique. I think it smacks of<br />

being terribly faddish, like morphs and no bleach.<br />

However, I've been considering uses for it, and<br />

know of some people who are rumored to be<br />

working on systematizing it. I'd love to here<br />

opinions from this group on it's viability.<br />

Don Canfield<br />

Dayton Taylor was basically using the same sort of<br />

set-up that Muybridge used in the nineteenth<br />

century, just with optical triggering rather than a<br />

set of strings to trigger the shutters. It's an<br />

interesting effect, but of limited use and definitely<br />

difficult.<br />

Page 54


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

You might consider just doing stop motion work<br />

instead... move the car an inch, move the camera<br />

an inch, fire the shutter, move the car an inch....<br />

Scott Dorsey<br />

I have recently seen this, or maybe a similar<br />

technique (?), used in a 'Coolio' rock clip - titled "I'll<br />

see you when you get there", also on David Bowie<br />

clip some time ago.<br />

I would love to know how involved (i.e. time<br />

consuming) and how practical it is for say a<br />

commercial. Anyone out there able to fill us in on<br />

these details?<br />

D. McClelland<br />

There is a new Miller Beer commercial that uses<br />

this device. The shot is a 180' arc around a frozen<br />

moment of beer being poured (sloppily) into a<br />

mug.<br />

Funny thing though, it sort of looks like a model -<br />

you know, plastic beer like in novelty shops. I think<br />

Page 55


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

its the execution that suffers here; the shot is on<br />

screen a short time and perhaps not close enough<br />

for TV. It could have even been the action<br />

photographed. The beer is splashing high out of<br />

the glass, at first I wasn't even sure what I was<br />

looking at.<br />

Still kinda cool, though.<br />

Dave Trulli<br />

I remember the music video, though. It was The<br />

Stones covering "Like a Rolling Stone" last year.<br />

I recall dismissing it as just another piece of digital<br />

software, until I signed up for the CML. As far as<br />

it's "limited artistic applications" are concerned, I'm<br />

sure the technique could be use for somewhat<br />

subtler ends.<br />

And didn't they say, in the late fifties, that<br />

Hitchcock's Dolly/Zoom had "limited artistic<br />

applications"?<br />

Stefan<br />

Page 56


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

And they were, essentially, right. Overused, isn't it.<br />

Looks cool but usually meaningless in the context<br />

of the film.<br />

It's a show-off shot, calls so much attention to<br />

itself that one is pulled out of the film for a<br />

moment -- just like overused surround SFX -- they<br />

trumpet their existence and distract the viewer.<br />

How about a little subtlety?<br />

Jeff "the old crank" Kreines<br />

Yeah, I have to agree with Jeff on this one. That<br />

shot, even when Hitchcock used it, was never<br />

anything other than "wow, look how that looks<br />

when we do this with the dolly and do this with the<br />

zoom" It is meaningless.<br />

Even to show a feeling. Spielberg ripped it off in<br />

Jaws. Every time I see it now, I think "oh wow,<br />

dolly/zoom thing again"<br />

Page 57


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Charles "have nothing against dolly or zooms"<br />

Newman<br />

The inventor of the system is Dayton Taylor and<br />

can be reached at HOLOCAM@aol.com. His phone<br />

number in New York is 212-477-1639.<br />

It is quite a unique system. The Music Clip was for<br />

the Stones and is extraordinary but I'm not sure if<br />

that was Daytons system.<br />

Boy you guys sound really negative about<br />

something that is a really neat way of looking at<br />

images and is somewhat new (in modern times).<br />

Sure it has limited uses and it is post heavy. But so<br />

what. For the right applications it's a tool to be<br />

used. Nothing more nothing less. Not something to<br />

be put down as "oh it's just a trendy trick and has<br />

no place."<br />

Where is our sense of wonderment and joy over<br />

something that is new and unique? And the person<br />

who asked the question obviously has an idea<br />

where this system can be used. Let's not try to talk<br />

him out of it before he even knows what it is, for<br />

heavens sake!<br />

Page 58


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Steven Poster ASC<br />

Touché. You're right about wonderment and such.<br />

There is no question that this effect is way cool. I<br />

suppose my un-stated thoughts are wondering if it<br />

would be economically viable to create a camera<br />

system to create this effect on a broad market<br />

basis. There has been success in creating this<br />

effect in new and unique situations without<br />

sophisticated systems.<br />

So, would a comprehensive packaged system<br />

simply accelerate the effect becoming tright, passé,<br />

and cliché, and encourage its becoming an<br />

overused show-off effect?<br />

Therein lies my analogy to morph and short-lived<br />

trends. Does the fad last long enough to justify<br />

building such a system ......? Just thinking out loud<br />

with out letting you know all that I'm thinking.<br />

Not that any of this really matters.....<br />

Don Canfield<br />

Page 59


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Real purpose ? How much deeper purpose did the<br />

Lumiere bros. need, Jeff ?<br />

True, the 'Camera invention' here may have no real<br />

purpose in 'most films' but then in the history of<br />

this medium the trix came first (we all start as<br />

kids).<br />

If we think of our default paradigm as flickering<br />

Renaissance painting (we have our camera obscura<br />

and our oils all in one small portable box) given<br />

movement... great beauty, ideas can be made from<br />

our conventional means of rendering motion in<br />

time, from the way we use the units, the frames.<br />

But if we were to substitute a _sculptural_<br />

metaphor, 'finding the form in the uncut stone' as<br />

they say... ?<br />

What is the 'purpose' of camera movement, for<br />

instance? of Crane shots?<br />

Well we can and do assign all kinds of purpose, but<br />

why does the omniscience of camera movement<br />

have to be tied to the reproduction of _space_ & in<br />

(more or less) real-time? Why NOT form instead?<br />

Or Both?)<br />

Doesn't use of the 'Camera Invention' say: here is<br />

another way to deal out the deck of frames, it's<br />

Page 60


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Muybridge taken in another direction, maybe we<br />

might say motion-pictured-sculpture: the Greeks<br />

of the classic period for example, might have been<br />

damn near to doing Renaissance perspective, but<br />

they were interested in something else, in<br />

sculptural forms, that may not be our agenda but<br />

is this any less sophisticated a way to see/depict<br />

things?<br />

If _still_ photography is a legitimate means for<br />

conveying ideas and single-camera sequential<br />

cinematography is too, why not these 'dynamic<br />

stills’? (I'm really being rhetorical here; I don't really<br />

know how far anyone could go with these gizmos).<br />

Depends on how you use it, maybe it is an<br />

approach to imaging itself, not necessarily a<br />

gimmick to be inserted.<br />

Sam 'not car shopping anyway' Wells<br />

Or really overcranked with strobes. You could<br />

arrange the cameras in a circle, and do a<br />

continuous virtual dolly shot around a Doc<br />

Page 61


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Edgerton stroboscopic popping balloon...<br />

Muybridge for the 90s.<br />

It would be cool, the first three times.<br />

Then you could morph it and maybe use a shifting<br />

lensboard on each camera to play with focus and<br />

put it on the Flame and do some more stuff and<br />

maybe bring out that slow motion lens...<br />

(Above said ironically...)<br />

Jeff "met Doc E once" Kreines<br />

There's another company doing this type of effect,<br />

Paws and Company, their email is<br />

hitpaws@aol.com, and their tel. is 201-714-9845.<br />

As a NY based efx person I've been intrigued with<br />

this type of imagery since seeing some examples<br />

going back about a year ago. There are several<br />

approaches to this type of visual effect. One<br />

method is via film -based image capture. That's the<br />

method Paws and company, Dayton Taylor, Tim<br />

McMillan, Reel EFX, etc. are pursuing. The other<br />

method is via CGI, such as Cineon interpolation.<br />

Page 62


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've seen the systems that Paws, Dayton, and Reel<br />

EFX have. They’re all quite nice, but the Paws rig is<br />

much more of a system. They built their cameras<br />

from scratch, as Dayton has also done, but they've<br />

got the whole assembly, posting back end in place.<br />

Dayton just captures the image. The Reel EFX rig is<br />

made of stills cameras, nice but limited, and no<br />

back end support. The Paws rig is apparently very<br />

adjustable, any configuration you want, any length<br />

you want, any lens you want.....the Dayton rig I<br />

believe is 8' long with a fixed lens.<br />

The apparent leader via the CGI method is a place<br />

in France called BUF. They do beautiful work but<br />

their abilities in manipulating the imagery is<br />

limited compared to the film -based approach.<br />

I've a wealth of info on this effect, anyone want to<br />

reach me I'm at<br />

PWefx@aol.com.<br />

Peter Weiss<br />

Page 63


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

4*3 or 16*9<br />

There is a huge and uniformed debate raging on<br />

the home theater and video.dvd usenet<br />

newsgroups about television aspect ratios, film<br />

frame size and common practices. Could some<br />

informed DP type please briefly address the<br />

following?<br />

1. How much of the film frame do 35mm<br />

originated episodics and TV movies actually use<br />

when shooting for 4:3? What about 16mm or Super<br />

16?<br />

2. If you also have to protect for 16:9 are you then<br />

using less of the film frame for the 4:3 portion<br />

than you would if you shot strictly for 4:3?<br />

3. What current shows are you aware of that are<br />

""protecting"" for 16:9 even though they are<br />

broadcast 4:3?<br />

4. Babylon 5 has been singled out on these<br />

newsgroups as an episodic that is supposedly shot<br />

""wide screen""; does anyone know for sure if they<br />

are in fact ""composing"" for a wide image? If so,<br />

do they pan and scan for 4:3 broadcast?<br />

Thanks for any answers and or comments on these<br />

topics. I will pass them on to the afflicted<br />

Page 64


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

newsgroups without nary a mention of this mailing<br />

list so we don't get too many more uniformed<br />

subscribers like myself.<br />

Charles Tomaras<br />

(I hope this question passes the God....err...uh... I<br />

mean ...Geoff test! )<br />

3) Nearly every drama in the UK is shot 16:9 now,<br />

in fact I can't think of any that aren't!<br />

2) If you shoot super 35 centered then you have<br />

the same TV image size as normal with the extra<br />

neg. available on both sides for 16:9 use.<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Are these UK dramas being broadcast letterboxed,<br />

pan/scan, or side cropped?<br />

Charles Tomaras<br />

Page 65


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Most are shown 14:9, a sorta halfway house that<br />

doesn't offend too many people.<br />

How were Cracker, Prime Suspect etc shown there?,<br />

they were all 16:9<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

By now you have probably been deluged with<br />

numbers. As a DP, actively involved in shooting<br />

both Features and Television Movies (usually 6 per<br />

year) here is my bit.<br />

As you already know the whole issue of framing<br />

has become incredibly complex with the<br />

introduction of home 16:9 receivers and the<br />

""fear"" by many production companies was that<br />

their product would not be saleable once HDTV<br />

was introduced.<br />

About two years ago everyone started shooting TV<br />

Movies in the 16:9 aspect ratio but that calmed<br />

down a little after 9 months and now the number<br />

Page 66


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

of movies actually shooting for the wider format<br />

appears to be in the 50%-60% range.<br />

Movies I have shot for MCA/TV have all been 16:9<br />

and others are randomly distributed according to,<br />

sadly, whether the Producer understands it or not.<br />

Basically there are two systems.<br />

Conventional formatting in which the image<br />

occupies a small percentage of the Full Aperture<br />

negative area (for TV somewhere around 35%) and<br />

is aligned to the right side of the negative image<br />

area against the perfs. The entire negative image<br />

area is exposed (unless a hard matte is used) but<br />

only the much smaller area is actually used to<br />

compose the image. This is not only very wasteful<br />

but does not make full use of the possible image<br />

area of the negative. When moving to 1.85 and<br />

2.35 images only a minute portion of the usable<br />

negative is utilized.<br />

Super 35. Exposes image information over the<br />

entire Full Aperture Area of the negative...resulting,<br />

arguably some say, with a much improved image<br />

quality.<br />

There are two ways to shoot Super 35. First with<br />

the image centered on the center of the negative<br />

and each aspect ratio located from that central<br />

position OR Second, Super 35 Common Topline.<br />

Page 67


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The common topline is favored amongst DP's<br />

shooting for combination TV and European<br />

Theatrical release (and by a growing number<br />

shooting Theatrical films knowing they will end of<br />

on TV).<br />

With this system, again the full aperture area is<br />

exposed only here the full area is occupied by the<br />

composed image. Also each format<br />

(2.35/1.85/1.66/1.33) has a common topline. The<br />

usable and composed image area extends perf to<br />

perf but the frame topline is a constant for each<br />

format.<br />

The reasoning here is that headroom will always<br />

stay the same whether the film is seen in a theater<br />

at 1.85 or on TV at 1.33 with only the area at the<br />

bottom of the frame varying. My feeling is that I<br />

compose a frame based solely on the intended<br />

original release format because trying to ""protect""<br />

for TV on a 16:9 ratio brings in the added question<br />

of information cut-off on the sides of the image.<br />

I have intentionally avoiding using all the<br />

measurements, as it tends to confuse the picture<br />

even more.<br />

The debate is no less heated within the ranks of<br />

DP's, Distributor's, TV Executive's and Producer's.<br />

Hope this helps,<br />

Page 68


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Regards<br />

Rob Draper, ACS<br />

Nearly all 35mm television being shot today in L.A.<br />

uses a variation on Super 35. This would include all<br />

material from Warners, Fox, Universal, Disney,<br />

Columbia-TriStar, and assorted independents. The<br />

format used is a ""shoot and protect"" system in<br />

which a 1.33 extraction is taken from the optical<br />

center of a 1.77 framing.<br />

Because NTSC safe action is protected, the image<br />

area in this format for current broadcast is<br />

significantly smaller than that of Academy aperture<br />

35. In fact, the image area is almost identical to<br />

that of 3 perf, which is one reason that I can't<br />

understand why we're still using 4 perf (except, by<br />

and large, on multicamera sitcoms, which are<br />

primarily on 3 perf already).<br />

Super 35 is itself simply a designation for full<br />

aperture set-up, in which the Academy track area<br />

is ignored and used for picture.<br />

Page 69


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

There are many variations on this format in use for<br />

theatrical releases, most of which revolve around<br />

location of the topline and width of the intended<br />

release format. But for television, it's pretty<br />

standardized, at least in Hollywood.<br />

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.<br />

A Viacom TV series (now cancelled) ""Diagnosis<br />

Murder"" was shot 24 fps in three perf 35mm<br />

(Panflex cameras). With the TV 1:33 extracted from<br />

the Academy aperture. The rest of the frame was<br />

blacked out (no attempt to save the rest of the<br />

frame). The TV image area was much smaller as a<br />

result. The only reason I heard was to save money.<br />

I wonder how much difference in quality there is<br />

between 3 perf 35mm and 16 mm for TV? One of<br />

the biggest problems was that the post house<br />

would only use one of the older Ranks set aside for<br />

the 3 perf transfers. I would guess because of tube<br />

burn patch being so different.<br />

A bad transfer can kill any material and the<br />

chances of getting a bad transfer increases with<br />

Page 70


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the use of ""oddball"" formats (and awarding work<br />

on price alone). The transfer of the show I assisted<br />

on looked great but some of the other episodes<br />

were awful (low contrast).<br />

Don Hayashi<br />

I don't know whether you're referring to daily<br />

transfer or the final product.<br />

The post house that you're referring to<br />

intentionally transfers their dailies very flat, leading<br />

many cameramen to complain about the look of<br />

their dailies.<br />

This is allegedly all addressed in the tape to tape<br />

final color correction, where the look of the final<br />

product is determined.<br />

The same post house is now using primarily Philips<br />

Quadra telecine, which has improved the situation<br />

of which you speak considerably.<br />

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.<br />

Page 71


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The quality difference between 3 perf 35 and<br />

16mm is exactly the same as 4 perf Vs 16mm. The<br />

image area in 3 perf does not change. Look at the<br />

appropriate section of your American<br />

Cinematographer Manual for diagrams and a<br />

detailed explanation.<br />

The reason for the old Rank is that three perf<br />

requires a modified movement and having an old<br />

Rank set up for it was easier, and probably less<br />

expensive, for the Post facility than changing one<br />

of their newer machines. Mike Most might<br />

elaborate on this.<br />

Why 3 perf? It's 25% cheaper with no loss of image<br />

quality. Like it or not.....this is a business and<br />

contrary to popular belief even a small saving on<br />

film stock is considered worthwhile.<br />

The DP's job is as much filmstock management as<br />

it is lighting, composition, etc<br />

Rob Draper, ACS<br />

Page 72


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and... cameras are quieter; less magazine changes,<br />

less short ends, less film rolls to carry.<br />

A BTS Spirit telecine can go from 4 to 3perf at the<br />

flip of a switch as well as a Cintel Ursa equipped<br />

with a Meta-Speed gate.<br />

--Jean-Pierre Beauviala<br />

This is true provided that you're comparing 3 perf<br />

and Super 35 1.77:1.<br />

The image area in 3 perf is smaller than Academy<br />

1.33, however. Under any circumstances, 3 perf is<br />

at least 4 times the image area of 16mm.<br />

Sure. Early use of 3 perf on Mk. III telecines<br />

requir ed creation of a 12 tooth sprocket for a<br />

custom 3 perf gate, as well as a servo modification.<br />

This is what Lorimar used when they began using<br />

the 3 perf format for Max Headroom, followed by<br />

their other shows, in 1986.<br />

When the Ursa was released, the gates could<br />

identify themselves, automatically triggering the<br />

alternate servo settings. Metaspeed eliminates the<br />

need for a custom gate entirely, as it allows use of<br />

Page 73


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the standard 4 perf gate for 3 perf work. Until<br />

Metaspeed, the tube burns were indeed a big<br />

problem, which led some facilities to use a<br />

separate tube for 3 perf work, and led others to<br />

simply change tubes far more frequently (and<br />

suffer some burn patterning on 4 perf work).<br />

This is not commonly done on Ursas or Ursa Golds<br />

that use Metaspeed. The CCD machines, such as<br />

the Philips Quadra and Spirit, do not have any of<br />

these problems and can transfer 3 perf at the flick<br />

of a switch (and a new FPN setting).<br />

That was my point as well. If we are going to<br />

continue to shoot for 1.77:1, using 4 perf is quite<br />

simply wasteful. Now don't get me wrong, I like<br />

having additional image area for flexibility in reframing<br />

when necessary, and I do like having a<br />

wider frame line to protect against stray hairs in<br />

the gate, but as you said, this is a business.<br />

Mike Most, Encore Video, L.A.<br />

I was speaking of the broadcast quality. The<br />

episode I worked on had a lot of contrast. Not very<br />

Page 74


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

detailed in the shadows or the highlights but much<br />

more dramatic than the other episodes of the same<br />

series. It could have been a one shot decision to<br />

increase the contrast for that one episode because<br />

of the script.<br />

Don Hayashi<br />

Page 75


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

85 or 85B<br />

Well then here is the question:<br />

If I expose a shot in daylight (gray scale/color chart<br />

in frame) with tungsten balanced film using:<br />

1. AN 85<br />

2. An 85b<br />

3. With no filter. (compensating for exposure of<br />

course)<br />

Will the lab be able to correct them all to BE the<br />

same? Won't the difference in the spectral<br />

components of the light reaching the film make a<br />

difference on the negative? One that we can see<br />

even when the shot is corrected to the same gray<br />

scale? Anyone done such a test, anyone know the<br />

answer?<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Once upon a time Cinematographers performed<br />

strange rituals in which they would expose film<br />

with various filters, look at the film, and draw<br />

conclusions which would further their experience.<br />

Page 76


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Rob Draper, ACS<br />

What happened to the day when we didn't do what<br />

everyone else thought was right and actually tried<br />

something out for ourselves. Some of my best work<br />

came from my own experiments. Also some of my<br />

greatest failures. I often laugh when someone asks<br />

the question "what is that stock like or what does<br />

that lens look like?" That’s like describing the work<br />

of Michael Angelo over the phone. I'm not saying<br />

this is the norm, but lately I sure see a lot of it.<br />

Lately it's less legwork and more join the club. It<br />

seems sometimes like the art of cinematography is<br />

merely paint by numbers.<br />

WalterNY<br />

There will be some differences in look when you<br />

shoot without the<br />

Page 77


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

85 and have the lab correct it in printing. Without<br />

proper filter correction, your blues get over -<br />

exposed (or denser on the negative) and the reds<br />

get under -exposed (or less dense.) Visually, this<br />

will make your reds less saturated, meaning that<br />

fleshtones will lose some of their color saturation<br />

(although this can be more pleasing in some<br />

cases.)<br />

I usually shoot indoor daylight scenes with an LLD<br />

filter instead of an 85 onto tungsten stock, and I<br />

find that my fleshtones are a little more pastel, but<br />

in a pleasant way. But once I shot a scene and later<br />

found out that the window glass that the HMI's<br />

were shining through had a blue tint; even though I<br />

had used an LLD, my image was quite blue and<br />

when I timed it back to "normal", the fleshtones in<br />

the scene went pretty monochrome (although<br />

nobody else watching the print noticed this.)<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 78


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Not only that but If I'm not wrong isn't an 85B the<br />

proper correction for 3200(deg.)? There's 200(deg.)<br />

thrown right out the window at the get go...<br />

Steven Poster ASC<br />

You’re absolutely right! It takes an 85B to bring<br />

5500K to 3200K (Tungsten balanced emulsions). I<br />

always use the 85B for my shoots. However, this<br />

brings up the following question: Why is it then<br />

that Kodak charts, like the ones in field guides, or<br />

the charts in the AC manual, always recommend<br />

the use of an 85 to convert 5500K to 3200K and<br />

not an 85B?<br />

Only Ektachrome films get an 85B correction on<br />

Kodak Charts.<br />

Norayr Kasper<br />

As a documentary guy usually working wide open<br />

in low light conditions, I have a tendency to use a<br />

Page 79


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

#82 filter. You don't lose anywhere near as much<br />

light as with a #85, and it gives a better look than<br />

using nothing at all and correcting exclusively in<br />

printing.<br />

--Scott<br />

After doing a test of filters a number of years ago,<br />

I'm not so sure it's that important that our 85's<br />

match perfectly.<br />

I did a filter test where I would shoot a scene with<br />

say an 85 on one half of the 35mm still frame, with<br />

the other half covered. (Actually using a Cokin split<br />

frame attachment.) I would then spin this device<br />

around and expose the other half of the frame with<br />

a filter that I wanted to compare to the first filter.<br />

Even though I was using regular still color negative<br />

film and having the prints made at a one hour<br />

photo shop, I could still make a valid comparison<br />

because both sides of the print had received the<br />

same printing exposure and development.<br />

For a test comparing 85 type filters, I would of<br />

course first put a overall 80A filter on to turn the<br />

daylight color negative film into a tungsten film. It<br />

Page 80


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

got a little tricky correcting for the various filters<br />

so that density would be even between the two<br />

sides.<br />

What amazed me was that a Chocolate filter, which<br />

certainly looks very different then an 85 correction<br />

filter produced virtually the identical correction as<br />

an 85 filter!?<br />

I've also seen "85" filters from still photography<br />

manufacturers that looked much browner then our<br />

customary Tiffen/Kodak "orange" filters.<br />

I came to the conclusion that the visual look of a<br />

correction filter was not necessarily an indication<br />

of it's ability to do its job ...<br />

Mako Kowai<br />

Well, since spectral sensitivity curves are not linear<br />

and color negative films have to "cheat" the<br />

spectral response of the dye layers (thus the<br />

orange masking) my *guess* is (and it's just a<br />

guess) that a straight 85 IS providing the proper<br />

correction to the dye layers.<br />

Page 81


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Also the spectral distribution of sunlight or any<br />

other blackbody is non-linear, so it's always a<br />

question of "matching the curves" - 5500K is a<br />

_nominal_ color temperature - "photographic<br />

daylight" which is equivalent to a so-called<br />

*typical* daylight situation, actually described as a<br />

mixture of sunlight and skylight with the sunlight<br />

predominating. (An EK booklet I have says<br />

photographic daylight is based on "average<br />

summer sunlight at noon in Washington DC" ! )<br />

A 200 degree margin is significant at 3200 deg.<br />

but is relatively insignificant at 5500 deg.<br />

The Ektachrome films were always rated for 3200K,<br />

only Kodachrome is 3400K.My guess here is that<br />

EK felt 3400K lamps would give less magenta in<br />

skintones, in home movies and slides. Also some<br />

3400K lamps are designed to with envelopes to<br />

reduce UV transmission.<br />

Anyway I don't think magenta in skintones is much<br />

of an issue these days - in fact 3200K lamps with<br />

3200K stock looks too cold to many of us, hence<br />

all the warming straws etc etc..<br />

Sam Wells<br />

Page 82


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Sorry Sean - you've gone crazy! They always<br />

required an #85 not #85B for basic colour<br />

correction on those ECN stocks (3200K) You're<br />

probably (like me) from the halcyon days of<br />

reversal colour where the #85B was the<br />

recommended correction for the 3400K stock like<br />

'42, '40, '50 and Kodachrome 40.<br />

From what KODAK tells me and others this is true -<br />

the ECN 3200K balanced stocks are designed for a<br />

Wratten #85 filter for daylight correction so that<br />

correctly exposed - in theory you'd get a printer<br />

light of 25:25:25 to the LAD standard. But then<br />

that's only the theory!<br />

The bottom line is always do what looks good!<br />

John Bowring<br />

That's not how I remembered it so I fished out<br />

Kodak H-1 (Selection and use of MP films, 1976),<br />

Eastman Films for the Cinematographer 1994 and<br />

some K 40. Here's the story they tell.<br />

Page 83


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Kodachrome 40 is an A type film: i.e. it is balanced<br />

for 3400K Photofloods and an 85 is the correct<br />

filter. Ektachrome '52 and '44 (Super 8) are also<br />

quoted as being type A.<br />

The Kodak literature gives '50,'40 and '42 as type<br />

B, i.e. balanced for 3200K. An 81A is suggested for<br />

use in 3400K light and an 85B for daylight. I'm not<br />

even going to mention type G Ektachrome.<br />

The filtration for all negative films, daylight and<br />

tungsten, is given as the same for 3200K and<br />

3400K, i.e. 80A for daylight and none for tungsten.<br />

I asked Don Strine of Kodak about the use of the<br />

LL-D filter with Vision stocks (I haven't got round<br />

to trying that combination yet). His reply was that<br />

because modern neg. stock has such a long<br />

straight section on the characteristic curve there is<br />

not so much need for it (or an 85 by implication)<br />

now as there used to be - because the print can be<br />

made away from the toe and shoulder. That's the<br />

key to the whole issue, isn't it?<br />

That's why you can't correct reversal film so well at<br />

a later stage. If the mid tones are corrected the<br />

highlights tend to turn orange. This effect was<br />

deliberately used the other way round to give blue<br />

skies were there were none for a wartime film<br />

Page 84


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

made in a lifeboat somewhere up North (the name<br />

escapes me).<br />

Maybe the 85 is suggested for historic reasons - it<br />

is the correct filter for Kodachrome 40A and that is<br />

all that really matters!<br />

Continuing the Filterspotters tone, interestingly<br />

enough Kodak suggests the 80A for using daylight<br />

neg. film in tungsten (i.e. 3200 to 5500K). This is<br />

about 1/3 of a stop denser than the already dense<br />

80B. Why not just use the 80B? It gets more<br />

exciting by the hour.<br />

Malcolm McCullough<br />

Sorry to bring up a stale topic but I have just<br />

received a reply from the Kodak Gurus (Geoff<br />

Whittier, John Pytlak, Steve Powell, Fred Knauf and<br />

Ron Lorenzo) about the filter question.<br />

Although they could not give us a definite "This is<br />

the reason why", the general consensus is the<br />

spectral sensitivity difference in the two films.<br />

If you look at the spectral sensitivity curves of the<br />

two products (Ektachrome and negative films),<br />

Page 85


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

there is a noticeable difference in the yellow<br />

forming layers at the 400-450 wavelength range.<br />

Comparing an 85 and 85b filter, the most<br />

significant difference falls in the same range, thus<br />

the belief that the 85 filter was chosen over the<br />

85b. All commented that either filter would<br />

produce acceptable results and only a very slight<br />

difference in look. John went as far as suggesting<br />

the only difference was in the taste of the people<br />

who originally prepared the data sheet information<br />

and all agreed that john was not far from the truth.<br />

I hope this is of some interest<br />

David Donaldson<br />

Keep in mind that transferring reversal to tape is<br />

not new. For many years all film intended for<br />

television...news, documentary, current affairs,<br />

commercials (though not to the same<br />

extent)..originated on reversal stock. News<br />

especially because of the turnaround time to get it<br />

on air. I many cases the film was shot, processed<br />

Page 86


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and edited and then projected through the old film<br />

chains directly to air.<br />

I think every cameraman should spend some time<br />

shooting nothing but reversal stocks....it is the<br />

greatest way to really learn the subtleties of<br />

lighting, exposure, tonal variation, color and Film<br />

to Tape. If you think it's tough getting negative to<br />

tape through an Ursa Gold and DaVinci you should<br />

try it sometime with reversal on the old RCA<br />

Telecine chains....I am sure some of my old mates<br />

from the ABC (Aust) and BBC Documentary teams<br />

know what I mean.<br />

Exposure accuracy was extremely critical as there<br />

was no safety net as is the case with today's low<br />

con negs.<br />

Given all that, shooting reversal for telecine does<br />

require a modified approach but the results are<br />

quite spectacular, as everyone has commented,<br />

especially on the Fuji reversal which I believe is<br />

essentially based on their Velvia still stock.<br />

Rob Draper, ACS<br />

Page 87


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I think we should all meet in Washington DC at<br />

mid-day for the Summer Solstice and at the exact<br />

time shoot filter tests.<br />

We could then sell them to Tiffen and Kodak and<br />

make an Interactive CD ROM...or better yet maybe<br />

we could set up a Web site and put all the technical<br />

parameters in there so people might end up totally<br />

confused by it all and then we would be the only<br />

guys who would know the REAL truth.<br />

Then all this would become proprietary and we<br />

could make lots of money and spend days in<br />

Museums looking at wonderful works of Art and<br />

marvel at the fact that these guys had never heard<br />

of 85 filters but still managed to get it right.<br />

Rob Draper, ACS<br />

Actually, I've heard there's a rare night-exterior<br />

Vermeer that was painted indoors but with<br />

daylight-balanced paint. The owner tried to correct<br />

it later in retouching but could never quite get the<br />

reds right and there wasn't very much contrast to<br />

begin with.<br />

Page 88


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

So they took all the color out of it and released it<br />

as a sketch...<br />

Art Adams<br />

Ah... Isn't Rembrandt the one who MADE UP his<br />

own additional light sources to suit his own needs?<br />

Can't you see the man setting up his own little oil<br />

Tweenie off in the far corner of Night Watch? --<br />

"Hang on folks, just stay right where you are, just<br />

need this one last detail..."<br />

Jay<br />

The following was translated from a little known<br />

parchment relating to a discussion between<br />

Rembrandt and one of his many patrons:<br />

Patron: "You're killing me, Remmy baby, you're<br />

killing me! I can't stand like this all day and these<br />

costumes are costing me plenty!"<br />

Page 89


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Rembrandt: "Just one more candle... I need to add<br />

one more candle..."<br />

Patron: "Just sketch it in, I'll have one of your<br />

students fix it later!"<br />

Rembrandt: "But this is the third time I've painted<br />

this portrait! Always time to do another painting<br />

but never enough time to light one more candle..."<br />

Patron: "Hey, I can hardly see into those shadows,<br />

add some white, will 'ya?"<br />

Rembrandt: "Always with the shadows... next it'll<br />

be too much perspective..."<br />

Patron: "Yeah, what's with that foreshortening<br />

stuff? I paid for everything in this room and I want<br />

it all to look BIG!!!"<br />

Rembrandt: (sighing) "Time for the large brushes<br />

and a gallon of thinner..."<br />

Art Adam<br />

I am impressed with the discussion on the use of<br />

85 and 85-B filters. A little history lesson might be<br />

appropriate in light of the wave of post production<br />

Page 90


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and computer imaging currently riding the crest of<br />

popularity.<br />

First, let me say, that now as in the past, science<br />

had been unable to manufacture a variable<br />

"RECEIVER', be it film, tape, television, pixels, etc.<br />

All color receivers manufactured to capture visual<br />

images are each color balanced for "ONE" Kelvin<br />

temperature. The one for which it was designed.<br />

The first color films were introduced to the<br />

industry back in the mid 1930's.<br />

Type "B" films were color balanced to tungsten<br />

light (3,200K). A very important point of reference,<br />

since the light was known, had a standard Kelvin<br />

temperature and was measurable.<br />

Even though film emulsions were all over the lot,<br />

in those early days the industry needed to convert<br />

tungsten films to daylight. The first conversion<br />

filter was a #83. (A medium orange color).<br />

As the emulsions became stable, Eastman Kodak<br />

discontinued the #83 and introduced the 85-B.<br />

The nomenclature contained the complete use for<br />

the filter. An 85-B for use with Type B films rated<br />

at 3,200K.<br />

The next film venture was the manufacturing of<br />

Type A films, color balanced to 3,400K, that<br />

Page 91


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

required less color conversion and gave birth to the<br />

#85 filter.<br />

For those of you who keep adding the #81 series to<br />

your #85, you should check your film and filter<br />

relationships. A straight #85 is 200 degrees "Color<br />

Short" for converting 3,400K rated films to<br />

daylight.<br />

As for using no filter and color correcting in the<br />

lab, my personal view has always been to correct in<br />

the camera. You might ask Why? Well --- The<br />

energized light carrying an image from a scene to<br />

the receiver when measured with a Kelvin<br />

temperature meter, is a mean average. Conversion<br />

filters correct the mean averages, but some points<br />

of light are warmer than the average and some<br />

points of light are colder. It is these slight color<br />

variations that give "LIFE" to color pictures.<br />

When correction is performed in the lab, it's the<br />

same as painting the entire scene with a paint<br />

brush. The original image is overlaid with an<br />

optical color coating. The results are acceptable<br />

but stagnant. The color coating does not mix with<br />

the light of a scene.<br />

How about the use of 85-C filters, that equals 1/2<br />

of an 85? It converts 3,800K to daylight for use in<br />

Page 92


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

late afternoon, when a full 85 conversion would be<br />

too warm.<br />

One more point of information; The original 85<br />

type A nomenclature was shortened to 85-A then<br />

to 85. They are all the SAME filter.<br />

As for the 85-B and 85-C, these have no<br />

secondary name or symbol.<br />

Hank Harrison, Harrison & Harrison Filters<br />

Page 93


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Time Code on Film<br />

Anyone used Arri's SMPTE Time Code lately on their<br />

SR-III's ? Any strong opinions either way versus<br />

Aaton Code?<br />

Last time I used Time Code Sync was with an Aaton<br />

XTR in '94, and it worked very well since the 1st AC<br />

and the Sound Mixer were anal about Jamming<br />

Time Code.<br />

Also, is there still much resistance in Post/Telecine<br />

in Auto-Synching with this Technology? It'd be<br />

good to hear personal experiences on this. Seems<br />

like it gives more telecine time to actually timing<br />

the picture. It's also useful for filming incognito<br />

and not have to clap a slate ALL the time.<br />

Mark DP<br />

Arri replies to this later on (GB)<br />

I had the first SR3 timecoded camera in Australia -<br />

having for a long time in the eighties tried to get<br />

Page 94


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

an SR to actually work with code. It was only<br />

because of the Super 16 revolution that we swung<br />

back to AATON's in the late eighties - because they<br />

actually worked trouble free on Super 16 and with<br />

them came this wonderful timecode on film system<br />

called AatonCode.<br />

I've used AatonCode now extensively for 6 years<br />

and I can honestly say its better than sliced bread -<br />

I will not shoot sound without it. We've now<br />

converted both our Arri35BL cameras to AatonCode<br />

as well.<br />

AatonCode is definitely the world standard in<br />

timecode on film.<br />

It's available on all AATON SUPER 16 XTR cameras,<br />

many PANAVISION cameras, converted ARRI35BL<br />

and MOVIECAM cameras.<br />

On 16mm AatonCode has major advantages over<br />

ArriCode, these are:<br />

* AatonCode is a large rugged code 10 times<br />

bigger than ArriCode<br />

* AatonCode is NOT susceptible to scratching dirt<br />

and damage like<br />

ArriCode is.<br />

* AatonCode is laid down on the film safely<br />

between the sprocket holes<br />

Page 95


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

on 16mm, along side with the Kodak Keycode.<br />

ArriCode sits on the thin working edge of the<br />

SUPER 16mm frame, where all the rollers run right<br />

over the top of it eventually wearing it out.<br />

* AatonCode is recorded in the camera gate to<br />

ensure a fixed and locked code position to the<br />

picture. ArriCode is recorded in the magazine and<br />

is at the mercy of variations in loop size despite<br />

electronic correction.<br />

This will potentially mean they may be variations in<br />

sync at gate checks and apparently circuitry to<br />

monitor this.<br />

* AatonCode has both machine readable and eye<br />

readable code. ArriCode is only machine readable.<br />

* AatonCode carries with it a pile of useful<br />

information including:<br />

- SMPTE timecode at camera selectable speed.<br />

- the date<br />

- the camera number<br />

- the magazine ID<br />

- the production number<br />

ArriCode only carries the time and userbits.<br />

* AatonCode is not nearly as sensitive as ArriCode<br />

to exposure variations - AatonCode is very kind<br />

here with heaps of latitude.<br />

Page 96


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

* AatonCode exposure variations can be<br />

compensated for on KeyLink's<br />

exposure control - ArriCode has no control.<br />

* AatonCode is very easy to use as a system -<br />

ArriCode to work needs to use AATON's<br />

operational system, i.e. the ORIGIN C+<br />

MasterClock.<br />

* AatonCode users can be confident that code is<br />

being recorded because<br />

they can see it work at any gate check - ArriCode<br />

you just have to hope its working because you<br />

cannot see it working.<br />

* AatonCode generates a comprehensive database<br />

that can be integrated with ScriptLink - ArriCode<br />

cannot carry the same amount of info.<br />

* AatonCode integrates completely into the AATON<br />

KEYLINK post system, ArriCode's post system<br />

consists of a reader head and a black box with a<br />

light on it - there is no ARRI system - you have to<br />

use AATON's<br />

* AatonCode's reader head does NOT touch the<br />

film - The ArriCode reader head is a series of<br />

rollers that potentially can damage the film and<br />

alter the stability of the telecine.<br />

Page 97


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

* AatonCode is totally reliable enabling slate free<br />

operation – We recommend that ArriCode users<br />

always use slates as back up.<br />

* AatonCode is very very fast to use.<br />

Every major post house here in Australia and New<br />

Zealand now has AatonCode reading with AATON's<br />

Keylink.<br />

Many of our long forms shows all sync with<br />

AatonCode in telecine and record straight to AVID<br />

despite the DAT machines being a little slow at<br />

chasing.<br />

After Easter however this and pre roll will be a<br />

thing of the past as we will start getting the new<br />

AATON InstaSync system for KeyLink and INDAW -<br />

so the sound is there on the flash frame without<br />

waiting. No more colourists buggerising around<br />

with sound when they should be looking after your<br />

pictures!<br />

If you want an electronically generated slate on the<br />

first few frames of a shot you can use AATON's<br />

VIRTUAL SLATE, generated on KeyLink<br />

You can get more info on it if you're interested off<br />

AATON's web site.<br />

Best Regards<br />

John Bowring<br />

Page 98


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Check with Steve Vananda at Foto Kem (818) 846-<br />

3101. Baywatch Nights was shot with Arri 16SR<br />

III's and used Arri timecode-on-film extensively.<br />

They were ramming so much film through the Arri<br />

TC equipped telecine room that I couldn't get the<br />

work transferred I was doing with Arri TC on my<br />

535!<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

>AatonCode is definitely the world standard in<br />

timecode on film.<br />

>It's available on all AATON SUPER 16 XTR<br />

cameras, many PANAVISION >cameras, converted<br />

ARRI35BL and MOVIECAM cameras.<br />

So how expensive is it to put into my antique<br />

35BL1? (And why can't you put it in a 16BL? ;-))<br />

Jeff "too curious" Kreines<br />

Page 99


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

We did our AatonCode upgrades for our 35BLs a<br />

while ago with other upgrades but I think the<br />

AatonCode part all up cost around 10K.<br />

And as much as I love the old 16BL too Jeff, even if<br />

it were possible to Aatonize, I think its better left<br />

on the mantle piece as a reminder of what caused<br />

your bad back.<br />

Best regards<br />

John Bowring<br />

The method used in the Arri-SR III is quite<br />

fascinating, in that there's a little "range finder"<br />

that determines where the loop is so that it writes<br />

accurately to the film (look at the base of the<br />

camera where the bottom loop would be...there's a<br />

little window on the bottom of the Mag, if I<br />

remember correctly).<br />

Mark<br />

Page 100


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

In response to John Bowring's extended "rant" re<br />

Arri's TC-on-film system vs. Aaton's:<br />

I have been successfully utilizing Arri TC on Film<br />

with my 535A for 5 years and 435's for 2 years.<br />

Oh yes, that's the 35mm version.<br />

Baywatch Nights ran thousands and thousands of<br />

feet of 16mm Arri TC-on-film over the course of<br />

several seasons.<br />

I doubt they would have continued using the<br />

system for years if it "didn't work."<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

The never manufactured Vinten-Coutant camera<br />

was going to use a series of punches to<br />

permanently punch the timecode into the film.<br />

Then it could be read by mechanical contact<br />

switches, rather than optically. Only problem was,<br />

the punches they used required a continuous<br />

source of compressed air, so the c ameraperson<br />

had to wear two cans of DUST OFF on their belt,<br />

and have a little hose to the camera. While<br />

Page 101


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

workable, concern for the ozone layer killed off<br />

the project. ;-)<br />

I think that keeping it simple (like Aaton does)<br />

means far fewer problems in the future.<br />

"Fascinating" isn't as good as "simple," IMHO.<br />

Jeff "Rube Goldberg Lives! In Munich!" Kreines<br />

Jeff's clever posts are always good ones. :-)<br />

I've never had the good fortune of actually using<br />

the Time Code on an Arri-SR-III (although the<br />

cameras themselves are solid). Like I said in one of<br />

my last posts, last time I did TC, was Aaton XTR's,<br />

and it performed flawlessly.<br />

I am leaning towards the Aaton XTR for TC work,<br />

but am still considering the SR-II's & LTR's<br />

otherwise - somebody has to, why not the<br />

productions with the least money: THIS ONE ! :-)<br />

I'll pick simple over fascinating, but it's still<br />

impressive that the fascinating SR-III TC method<br />

actually works reliably...it just never seemed to<br />

Page 102


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

have caught on very well, not to mention that<br />

Aaton has been at the TC thing a bit longer.<br />

Mark<br />

Ah, so I do not check for 3 days, and all hell breaks<br />

loose. Following is a<br />

bunch of answers to some of the questioons and<br />

claims made here regarding Arri TC. I have split it<br />

up into separate emails to address specific<br />

previous posts.<br />

>Anyone used Arri's SMPTE Time Code lately on<br />

their SR-III’s?<br />

Feel free to call me (773 252 8003) with further<br />

questions about Arri TC.<br />

Arri TC is very popular in Europe, where a lot of TV<br />

is shot in Super 16 with SR-3's and Arri TC. The<br />

rate of adoption is a little slower in the US.<br />

Page 103


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

TC is currently used for concert footage and for<br />

synching audio in post. In a concert situation it is<br />

one of the simplest way to sync all the cameras.<br />

In post, the process of Synching audio is sped up<br />

by using TC, often to the point where the audio is<br />

transferred simultaneously with the image, thus<br />

saving one step.<br />

I was recently involved in a documentary on the<br />

Rolling Stones (they gave a "secret" concert here in<br />

Chicago in a small night club before their big<br />

performance), and both the night club (chaos) and<br />

the actual big performance (even more chaos) was<br />

shot with SR-3s using Arri TC.<br />

People are pondering further uses of TC, the most<br />

popular one being the idea of making a rough edits<br />

from the video assist tape, and then transferring<br />

only selected parts of the negative to video. Big<br />

savings in time (editing can be done earlier than<br />

previously) and in money (you do not have to<br />

transfer everything, just what you determined is<br />

useful in your rough edit) could be achieved. This<br />

has actually been tried by some courageous<br />

pioneers (Jon Fauer being one of them), and is<br />

being very actively investigated by at least one big<br />

US production company (I cannot tell you their<br />

Page 104


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

name, but the force is with them ,...), and is always<br />

a fun subject to breach on any party (Say, what is<br />

23.976 fps for?).<br />

The question of Aaton vs. Arri TC is not really a<br />

question any more, since the Aaton Keylink (a<br />

wonderful complete post solution JP has given us)<br />

can also process A rri TC. Believe it or not, in this<br />

regard the French and the German technology are<br />

actually working together. So which TC system to<br />

use should not really influence your decision of<br />

what camera to use.<br />

The tricky question with TC is always: does the<br />

post house know how to use it? Unfortunately, too<br />

few post houses carry either the Arri TC reader<br />

head or the Aaton KeyLink system, but there are<br />

slowly more and more. If you have a shoot<br />

involving Arri TC, and the post house of choice<br />

does not have an Arri TC r eader head, call me, and<br />

I will see what I can arrange. As always, and<br />

especially with something as inherently complex as<br />

TC, shoot tests and let the tests go through the<br />

whole production and post production process to<br />

make sure everyone is on the same page.<br />

Page 105


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

A minor correction:<br />

Russ does not work for Arri anymore. I have been<br />

declared responsible for TC now. Call me with any<br />

questions (773 252 8003) or send email<br />

(msmueller@arri.com).<br />

>I think the big question is this, how does it hold<br />

up since it is recorded >in the mag? It is my<br />

understanding that there needs to be a sensor to<br />

>measure the loop so that it is frame accurate (In<br />

16mm)?<br />

Recording the TC in the mag works very reliably.<br />

The position of the TC in the 16SR 3 is determined<br />

by a sensor in the camera that looks through a<br />

small window in the bottom of the magazine and<br />

measures the loop size with an infrared beam. The<br />

film will not record this particular wavelength, by<br />

the way. This sensor ensures that the distance<br />

between image and TC is constant on the film.<br />

Contrary to popular opinion this is not very<br />

complicated technology, nor has it been the cause<br />

of any problems I know of. It is simply one of those<br />

things that works and that you forget about.<br />

The recording intensity is set via a TCS (Timecode<br />

sensitivity) number on the magazine. This is almost<br />

Page 106


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

like ASA, but not quiet, since the LED is only one<br />

color (orange), and ASA gives the sensitivity for<br />

white light. Setting a special sensitivity number for<br />

each film stock ensures that the LED is exposing<br />

the TC barcode at exactly the proper intensity. A<br />

table of TCS numbers is distributed with all<br />

literature we give out (Quick Guides, manual, etc),<br />

and is also available in the web<br />

(http://www.arri.com) in the Technical Information<br />

pages.<br />

>AatonCode is definitely the world standard in<br />

timecode on film.<br />

>It's available on all AATON SUPER 16 XTR<br />

cameras, many PANAVISION >cameras, converted<br />

ARRI35BL and MOVIECAM cameras.<br />

If you measure what is the world standard by how<br />

many cameras are in circulation, Arri's<br />

implementation of the SMPTE TC is the world<br />

standard.<br />

We have sold many more Arri cameras than there<br />

are Panavision cameras out there (by a ridiculously<br />

large factor, simply because we sell and they rent),<br />

and all our new cameras are TC capable. The<br />

Page 107


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

difference is that the Aaton cameras are bought by<br />

very vocal (like Jeff "me vocal, no way" Kreines :-)<br />

) individual owners (this is what they were designed<br />

for in the first place. The cameras, not the owners.<br />

), and our cameras are sold to rental houses who<br />

spent most of their time renting the cameras. In<br />

addition, very few Panavision or Moviecam cameras<br />

are actually equipped with the AatonCode system,<br />

whereas EVERY new generation Arri camera has TC<br />

built in.<br />

>On 16mm AatonCode has major advantages over<br />

ArriCode, these are:<br />

Again I disagree. Plus, this discussion is academic.<br />

What counts in the end is if there is proper TC<br />

coming out of the system in post, and that works<br />

fine for both systems. But, since I was never one to<br />

shy away from a useless academic discussion (just<br />

ask my wife), lets look at your claims point by<br />

point.<br />

>* AatonCode is a large rugged code 10 times<br />

bigger than ArriCode >* AatonCode is NOT<br />

susceptible to scratching dirt and damage like<br />

>*ArriCode is.<br />

Page 108


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

This may have been a factor decades ago when the<br />

TC reading equipment was not as accurate as it is<br />

now, but is irrelevant nowadays. As any<br />

information on negative film, both are susceptible<br />

to scratches and dirt.<br />

Both systems have algorithms in the reading<br />

process that validate the data and make sure that<br />

you are getting proper TC, even IF there are<br />

scratches and dirt.<br />

>* AatonCode is laid down on the film safely<br />

between the sprocket holes > on 16mm, along side<br />

with the Kodak Keycode. ArriCode sits on the >thin<br />

working edge of the SUPER 16mm frame, where all<br />

the rollers run >right over the top of it eventually<br />

wearing it out.<br />

Both systems have advantages and disadvantages.<br />

The Aaton system keeps a very close physical<br />

connection between the image and the TC number,<br />

but there is the danger of having something else<br />

but the light from the lens expose your film in the<br />

gate. The Arri system records the TC in the<br />

magazine, where we can control the light much<br />

better (I am not saying this is the reason this<br />

Page 109


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

approach was adopted, but it is one of the results).<br />

To "wear out" the Arri barcode on the film you<br />

would have to run the negative so many times<br />

through your telecine, that this becomes a mute<br />

point.<br />

>* AatonCode is recorded in the camera gate to<br />

ensure a fixed and locked > code position to the<br />

picture. ArriCode is recorded in the > magazine<br />

and is at the mercy of variations in loop size<br />

despite > electronic correction. > This will<br />

potentially mean they may be variations in sync at<br />

> gate checks and apparently circuitry to monitor<br />

this.<br />

The 16SR 3 has an infrared sensor that measures<br />

the loop length and then records the TC on film so<br />

that the offset between TC and image is always<br />

constant. This system is there so that the offset<br />

stays constant between gate checks and<br />

magazines.<br />

Also: Because of delays in the signal paths of any<br />

telecine suite, there is always an offset between the<br />

TC and the image signals that the telecine operator<br />

will have to deal with, disregarding of where the<br />

Page 110


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

code is recorded physically on film. I believe this<br />

offset can be adjusted very nicely in the Aaton<br />

Keylink system, by the way.<br />

>* AatonCode has both machine readable and eye<br />

readable code. >ArriCode is only machine<br />

readable.<br />

True. This is an advantage when testing the TC<br />

system. It does not matter so much in telecine,<br />

since there the TC will be read by a machine for<br />

both systems.<br />

>* AatonCode carries with it a pile of useful<br />

information including:<br />

> - SMPTE timecode at camera selectable speed.<br />

> - the date<br />

> - the camera number<br />

> - the magazine ID<br />

> - the production number<br />

> ArriCode only carries the time and userbits.<br />

Even though there is some information that can be<br />

encoded in the Aatoncode that cannot be directly<br />

encoded in standard SMPTE TC, the following<br />

information CAN be found in SMPTE TC:<br />

Page 111


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

- Timecode at camer a selectable speeds<br />

- the date (if placed in userbits)<br />

- the camera number (if placed in userbits<br />

We have decided to stick with the standard SMPTE<br />

TC for Arri cameras to remain compatible with the<br />

rest of the world. As indicated above, you can<br />

certainly write the date and the camera number in<br />

the userbits of SMPTE TC, which leaves only the<br />

magazine ID and the production number. And here<br />

we have, I believe, also a better mouse trap: the<br />

Laptop Camera Controller can record the TC in and<br />

out times for every take automatically in a camera<br />

report. These cameras reports can contain other<br />

automatically recorded information (TC in, TC out,<br />

userbits, fps, shutter angle, feet per take, total<br />

footage run, frame in, frame out, time of day,<br />

name of speed/exposure program run) and some<br />

manually entered information (including: scene,<br />

take, MOS, INT/EXT, notes, filters, etc).<br />

>* AatonCode is not nearly as sensitive as<br />

ArriCode to exposure<br />

> variations - AatonCode is very kind here with<br />

heaps of latitude.<br />

>* AatonCode exposure variations can be<br />

compensated for on KeyLink's<br />

Page 112


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

> exposure control - ArriCode has no control.<br />

I just talked with a tech at Abel Cinetech in NY<br />

(Aaton rental house/dealer) and he said that even<br />

though the Aaton system has lots of theoretical<br />

exposure latitude, he tries to discourage people<br />

from being too lax about it. The reason is that<br />

when your TC exposure is off, other problems that<br />

did not affect the validity of the TC data before can<br />

become critical. He said that even though the<br />

Aaton system is listed as having 2 - 3 stops of<br />

latitude, he recommends staying within 1.5 stops.<br />

The Arri system is listed as having 2 stops latitude.<br />

This does not sound like such a big difference to<br />

me.<br />

>* AatonCode is very easy to use as a system -<br />

ArriCode to work needs > > to use AATON's<br />

operational system, i.e. the ORIGIN C+<br />

MasterClock.<br />

Au contraire. The Aaton system will ONLY work<br />

with the Origin C+ MasterClock, whereas the Arri<br />

system will work with ANY TC device that uses<br />

standard SMPTE TC, including the OriginC+<br />

MasterClock. This is a great advantage - any DAT,<br />

Page 113


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Nagra, GPS system, you name it with a TC in or out<br />

can work with the Arri cameras. All you need is a<br />

cable to connect the two. The Aaton system is<br />

dependent on the OriginC+ Masterclock to<br />

translate standard SMPTE TC into the Aaton<br />

proprietary format. If you forget your OriginC+,<br />

you cannot do TC with an Aaton camera. Since<br />

standard SMPTE TC is used widely in television and<br />

the scientific community, there is a wealth of<br />

SMPTE TC gadgets out there. I was just last week<br />

talking with a gentleman who is interfacing a 435<br />

to a GPS system. Turns out that Horita has a GPS<br />

data to SMPTE TC converter box. But that is<br />

another story.<br />

>* AatonCode users can be confident that code is<br />

being recorded because<br />

> they can see it work at any gate check - ArriCode<br />

you just have<br />

>> to hope its working because you cannot see it<br />

working.<br />

It is true that you can see the LEDs on Aaton<br />

cameras and not on Arri cameras. This gives the<br />

AC on the set some peace of mind. But I think this<br />

issue would be mis-represented if I did not point<br />

Page 114


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

out that this only shows you that SOMETHING is<br />

being recorded on film. As anyone knows who has<br />

worked with TC, it is far more important to know<br />

that the correct data is being recorded. The only<br />

way to verify that is by shooting tests and running<br />

it through the full production and post-production<br />

chain, which is something I would recommend to<br />

anyone who is planning on shooting TC,<br />

disregarding the camera's manufacturer.<br />

>* AatonCode generates a comprehensive<br />

database that can be integrated<br />

> with ScriptLink - ArriCode cannot carry the same<br />

amount of info.<br />

Not true. See LCC notes above. More information<br />

about the LCC can be found at<br />

http://www.arri.com, in the subsidiaries/Arriflex<br />

Corporation pages.<br />

>* AatonCode integrates completely into the<br />

AATON KEYLINK post system,<br />

> ArriCode's post system consists of a reader head<br />

and a black box<br />

> with a light on it - there is no ARRI system - you<br />

have to use<br />

Page 115


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

> AATON's<br />

True. And the Aaton system works also with Arri<br />

SMPTE TC, so you can have the best of both<br />

worlds.<br />

>* AatonCode's reader head does NOT touch the<br />

film - The ArriCode<br />

> reader head is a series of rollers that potentially<br />

can damage the film<br />

> and alter the stability of the telecine.<br />

I have worked with various telecine houses here in<br />

the US, and am in constant contact with my<br />

colleagues in Europe. We are not aware of any<br />

problems that have occurred because of the extra<br />

rollers in the film path.<br />

>* AatonCode is very very fast to use.<br />

Well, since the Arri cameras can work with any<br />

SMPTE TC system, including the OriginC+<br />

MasterClock, we can be at least as fast as the<br />

Aaton system,<br />

n'est pas?<br />

Page 116


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

>I've heard tell, that there isn't enough room in the<br />

SR to put the LED's in<br />

>the Gate area, or anywhere on the aperture plate,<br />

due to the reg. pin and<br />

> the rest of the movement. I have no confirmation<br />

on this rumor.<br />

I do not know if there is or is not enough room in<br />

the SR3. Arri/SMPTE Timecode was introduce with<br />

the 535A anyway, a while before the introduction<br />

of the SR 3.<br />

The reason the Arri/SMPTE TC is not recorded in<br />

the gate area is as follows: We decided to<br />

implement the SMPTE recommended standard for<br />

TC on film. This standard specifies a linear barcode<br />

on the film.<br />

Recording a linear barcode is very difficult in the<br />

gate area, since there the film moves<br />

intermittently. It is much easier to do in a place<br />

where the film moves in a linear fashion, like in the<br />

magazine (16SR 3) or before the top loop (535A,<br />

535B, 435).<br />

Page 117


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The Arri/SMPTE barcode is recorded by an LED that<br />

blinks on and off at certain intervals. This is fairly<br />

straightforward technology. The Aaton TC matrix is<br />

recorded in a different fashion, since it is recorded<br />

in the gate area, and since it is one symbol for each<br />

block of data, rather than a continuous barcode. I<br />

do not think that one system is inherently superior<br />

to the other, they are just different approaches to<br />

the same problem.<br />

Cheers,<br />

Marc Shipman-Mueller , Technical Representative<br />

Arriflex Corporation<br />

Just a bit of history;<br />

In fact there is room in the SR gate for a TC<br />

recording LED and indeed that is where the LED<br />

was originally placed in both the SR1 and SR2<br />

cameras.<br />

The SR1 cameras could use a system which<br />

consisted of four lights, which could record the<br />

old EBU time code.<br />

When the SMPTE TC system was adopted, the LED<br />

was again placed in the gate area. The problem, as<br />

Page 118


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mark points out, is that the transport of the film<br />

here is intermittent, with associated acceleration<br />

and deceleration of the film which needed to be<br />

compensated for with regards the speed of the<br />

flashing LED and it's intensity, in order to control<br />

exposure. This was achieved, but only via the use<br />

of a complicated processor, which had to be<br />

housed in a separate, very expensive, and not very<br />

small box, which had to be mounted on the side of<br />

the camera. Only a limited number of these boxes<br />

were produced by Arri, and most of them were<br />

used in the UK.<br />

The whole system at that time was designed to be<br />

used as part of a package called VAFE (Video<br />

Assisted Film Editing) - novel huh? A great idea but<br />

somewhat reminiscent of the old gag about the<br />

wonderful wristwatch which did everything but<br />

needed a sack barrow to carry the batteries !<br />

The advent of the new generation Arri cameras<br />

provided the possibility for recording the TC at a<br />

site where the film travelled at a constant speed.<br />

The actual code used however remained the same<br />

SMPTE as used in the SR2 and BL4.<br />

Alan Piper<br />

Page 119


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Panavision Cine-Europe<br />

P.S.<br />

You can easily check if the SR3 TC LED if 'working'<br />

- mag on camera, no film, open the small lens<br />

carrier in the film take-up side of the mag.<br />

Poke a small piece of paper into the open slot and<br />

run the camera. You can see the red light flashing,<br />

or not as the case may be.<br />

AatonCode – instructions<br />

Here are some basic instructions I give to our<br />

camera people.<br />

We've had great success with the system over many<br />

years now and find the best way to get good<br />

results is education of the crew before hand.<br />

Here are our notes:<br />

AatonCode in the Camera Department<br />

Setting up the ORIGIN C+ Master Clock<br />

At the start of each shooting day you enter into the<br />

'ORIGIN C+' this information:<br />

To start the ORIGIN C+ Push #<br />

Page 120


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

* Enter 'production-ID' number<br />

'production-ID' number' will flash. Enter by starting<br />

with the last two digits first, then enter the first<br />

four digits if any.<br />

* Sound roll ID changes during the day<br />

The last two digits - if being used for<br />

tape roll numbers, can be changed without<br />

effecting the time and date during the days shoot if<br />

required. To effect this just page back through to<br />

Prod ID and you will find the last two digits<br />

flashing.<br />

Change these then re-initialise the GMT SMPTE<br />

code generator on the audio recorder. Then hit #<br />

and the display then moves onto<br />

* Entering the Date so check your<br />

calendar!<br />

The Day. Enter two digits , then press # to<br />

move onto the month, enter two digits (i.e. March<br />

will be 03) then press # the year, enter the last two<br />

digits (i.e. 97) then press # (the ORIGIN C+ usually<br />

remembers the month and year on day to day<br />

operation so if correct just spool through this by<br />

pushing #. To correct while you're in the date i.e.<br />

go back to the day push *<br />

* Entering the Time<br />

Page 121


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The time will now already be flashing. the<br />

hour enter the two digits (i.e. 8.00am =08) then<br />

press # the minutes will now flash, enter two digits<br />

then press # the seconds will flash, enter two digits<br />

or nothing<br />

* To start the clock press *<br />

The ORIGIN C+ will now display hours:<br />

minutes: seconds<br />

* Checking back entries & correcting<br />

mistakes<br />

To scroll through and check all your<br />

settings, page through them by pushing # and<br />

backwards by pushing * unless you've entered the<br />

time.<br />

If you've made a mistake and would like<br />

to start again, Push # for 6 seconds or until until<br />

"Stopped" appears then push # ORIGIN C+ will<br />

turn off. Push # again and you're back at the start<br />

to load the production number!<br />

* Initialising the Camera with Code<br />

By connecting the ORIGIN C+ to the<br />

camera with its 5 pin Lemo plug.<br />

Push * on the ORIGIN C+ to download and<br />

check its code.<br />

The cameras control screen will flash<br />

momentarily with the code - the ORIGIN C+ should<br />

Page 122


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

report back GOOD 0.00 indicating that the loaded<br />

code is exactly right.<br />

* Code Indicators on the XTRProd<br />

Once initialised with code, the camera will<br />

display the internal AatonCode it's generating, on<br />

the liquid crystal display (LCD) only momentarily.<br />

To view the AatonCode, push the T/C display<br />

button underneath the display. Push the button to<br />

page through the other T/C information such as<br />

the Date, the Production Number and the Camera<br />

Base Number. (Not to be confused with the camera<br />

serial number - the base number is located on the<br />

camera base where your shoulder fits.)<br />

A little yellow LED next to the camera jog<br />

control will flash indicating there is T/C inside!<br />

* Check Your F.P.S. rate - 25 / 24 / 29.97 / 30<br />

Fram es Per Second<br />

* Check the gate<br />

Once a day - check the LED AatonCode<br />

printer has all 7 Light Emitting Diodes (L.E.D.'s)<br />

working. This is easily done by removing the<br />

magazine from the camera body and switching the<br />

camera to TEST, so the in-gate AatonCode L.E.D.'s<br />

will flash 4 then 3 or sequentially, so you can see<br />

that they are all there. Run the camera - and they<br />

will start twinkling a moment after camera roll.<br />

Page 123


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

* Set the AatonCode exposure<br />

This is done simply by setting the<br />

camera's internal light meter to the nominal value<br />

of the colour film without filter.<br />

If you don't want to use the exposure<br />

meter you can turn it off, without effecting the<br />

AatonCode exposure, but you will need to change<br />

the exposure if you are changing to a film stock<br />

with a with different sensitivity.<br />

* black and white film is different,<br />

because it is red insensitive, and the LEDs are red,<br />

over expose code by 2 stops to avoid<br />

underexposed code<br />

* Changing a camera battery<br />

Remember that when changing a camera<br />

battery, the camera's internal memory, (a charge<br />

capacitor) will retain the camera's AatonCode for<br />

about a minute with no battery connected. The<br />

cameras display screen will flash the warning "No<br />

Batt" However, if you are too slow, you will loose<br />

the AatonCode, so best practice is to have the<br />

replacement battery on hand before you remove<br />

the flat battery from the camera.<br />

* Checking the camera code with the ORIGIN C+<br />

It will tell you the code accuracy to within<br />

one tenth of a frame. It's wise to do this every few<br />

Page 124


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

hours. Perhaps m orning tea, lunch and afternoon<br />

tea.<br />

At the 8 hour mark, the camera's LCD will<br />

start flashing the time, to tell you that it is time to<br />

re-initialise the system for maximum accuracy. It<br />

will flash for another 8 hours before shutting<br />

down.<br />

* If the ORIGIN C+ reads Time Diff or BAD<br />

In the unlikely event you get a BAD or<br />

Time Diff reading – before re-initialising to the<br />

correct time, get the recordist to roll and shoot a<br />

reference slate. Alert Continuity for notation of a<br />

sync discrepancy in the SCRIPTLINK. This will<br />

enable the telecine colourist to correct the sync<br />

offset easily.<br />

Then re-boot all code devices on set with<br />

the ORIGIN C+ and then re-slate.<br />

* Shooting Mute or for Variable Speed<br />

Even if you are shooting mute - record<br />

AatonCode!<br />

This is excellent for documenting shots in<br />

the field, later in telecine and during the edit - all<br />

automatically for ScriptLink and AVID's clip<br />

function.<br />

If you are shooting variable speed - still<br />

record AatonCode!<br />

Page 125


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Although the film is running faster or<br />

slower than normal speed, the time documentation<br />

still occurs as the film passes through the gate and<br />

even though with playback in telecine at normal<br />

sync speeds, although the code is not useable for<br />

syncing, but it is still useful for documentation.<br />

* Pre-Roll Arrangements for for linear sound replay<br />

in telecine.*<br />

The first will call sound to roll - when<br />

sound indicates speed then cameras roll giving<br />

approximately a 5-6 second film roll up during<br />

which time a slate can be used if required, before<br />

'action' is called. This will enable the DAT in chase<br />

sync mode in telecine to 'catch' the film's timecode.<br />

The pre-roll process is unnecessary when<br />

using InstaSync in telecine or with INDAW -<br />

AATON's non-linear sound syncing station. This<br />

equipment is much smarter and faster than the<br />

average audio chase as it uses the date to sync as<br />

well. I highly recommend you insist on this as it<br />

makes life very easy for everyone!<br />

DEVA recordings on 4 track generated to<br />

JAZ or Syjet can now be used straight into<br />

InstaSync or Indaw and is certainly a big advantage<br />

over DAT.<br />

Page 126


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

* The Midnight Syndrome - Shooting over<br />

11:59:59.<br />

If you’re using AATON's INDAW or<br />

InstaSync this is not a problem - don't worry about<br />

it. If you're not - try and avoid this - usually by<br />

starting your ORIGIN c at a time that will not clash<br />

with midnight.<br />

* Working without sync slates: Roll Slate at the<br />

head of each camera roll with sound!<br />

At the head of each camera roll, instead<br />

of just recording it mute, get your sound recordist<br />

to roll sound, then verbally ident. the slate and<br />

clap! This will help your telecine colourist to check<br />

that the camera and sound rolls are correct and in<br />

sync with each other. That one clap, acts like the<br />

pip on 2, on a SMPTE standard clock leader at the<br />

start of each transfer roll - sync is checked from<br />

the start of the transfer and all is right with the<br />

world!<br />

Best regards<br />

John Bowring<br />

Page 127


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Arri Variable Primes<br />

>" Saw a few ads for the Arri/Zeiss Variable Primes.<br />

Although no technical discussion. Does any one<br />

out here have any info on these lenses. Are they<br />

just zooms, with a new name? Does focus hold<br />

throughout, do they track well or drift, Etc. Also<br />

any personal experience with the lenses, likes<br />

dislikes, comments."<<br />

I own a set of the three VP lenses. the VP1 is a<br />

16mm to 30mm, the VP 2 is a 29mm to 60mm,<br />

and the VP 3 is a 55mm to 105mm. All are T2.2<br />

*throughout* their zoom range. (Many zoom lenses<br />

cheat on this and vary as much as 3/4 stop<br />

throughout their zoom range) The name is<br />

somewhat misleading. They are indeed shortrange<br />

zooms, they do hold focus though out their<br />

zoom range.<br />

The do cover the Full or "Silent" aperture (again,<br />

most zooms do not cover anything greater than the<br />

Academy aperture making their use somewhat<br />

scary on Super 35 productions, depending on<br />

extraction format)<br />

Page 128


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

They are extremely robust mechanically, they track<br />

extremely straight and repeat focal lengths with<br />

exacting tolerances (necessary if you are zooming<br />

with a motion control rig if you want multiple<br />

passes to match)<br />

Sharpness and contrast? They are scary they are so<br />

good. They have less flare and better correction of<br />

chromatic aberration than most primes I have seen.<br />

I shot a couple of the scenes on Dante's Peak with<br />

the Zeiss VP lenses alongside the show's regular<br />

Panaflexes using Primo Prime lenses. During<br />

dailies, viewing a contact print from the original<br />

negative, you could not tell the difference between<br />

the Zeiss VP lenses and the Primo Primes. Many of<br />

the shots are in the movie.<br />

Good correction of chromatic aberration is<br />

extremely important if you are doing blue or green<br />

screen mattes. If the different colors are imaging at<br />

different places on the film plane, the mattes are<br />

not going to fit!<br />

Low flare and ghosting are important in the newer<br />

styles of photography where extremely bright<br />

highlights are in or near the edges of the frame.<br />

>From a design standpoint, you might wonder,<br />

"Why short zooms? Why not just build a really well<br />

designed and corrected set of primes?" The answer<br />

Page 129


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I got made sense: It *is* possible to utilize the lens<br />

design software and design a really high quality<br />

prime lens using aspheric lens elements, floating<br />

groups of elements for focus, and all the other<br />

tricks now available. After you have done that, you<br />

have a very expensive, well corrected, prime with<br />

lots of elements of glass. A complete set of focal<br />

lengths would be too expensive to produce or sell.<br />

Once you have spent all this design time and<br />

money for expensive aspheric glass and moving<br />

groups of elements, it wasn't too much more work<br />

to add a little more and have a short range zoom<br />

with *no* compromise in quality. Now that there<br />

needs to be only 3 lenses in the set, you can "go<br />

for broke" and make them the absolute best you<br />

can do.<br />

By the way, contrary to popular myth, none the<br />

Panavision Primo Primes have *any* aspheric lens<br />

elements, they are all spherical.<br />

Bill Bennett, Los Angeles<br />

How accurate are the listed focal lengths? I ask<br />

because I am frequently involved with matching<br />

Page 130


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

camera footage and CGI backgrounds, in motion<br />

control tracking shots. With zoom lenses<br />

particularly, even when set to hard lens mark<br />

positions, there is often considerable inaccuracy as<br />

to actual, mathematical focal length as it pertains<br />

to angle of view. Once you position the lens<br />

between marks, it's time to guess and punt.<br />

Don Canfield<br />

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

whether or not they breathe very much when you<br />

rack?"<<br />

The close focus is about 2.5 feet for the two wider<br />

lenses and 2.75 feet for the longer.<br />

Only the VP1 (the 16mm to 30mm) exhibits some<br />

tendency to "breathe" and it's not bad, especially<br />

since it has great depth of field due to being so<br />

wide, so hopefully big focus pulls will be<br />

unnecessary... just rely on the depth to be there<br />

and go with the "splits".<br />

They are very accurate. I just shot some tests with<br />

both Zeiss Primes and the Zeiss VP lenses. The<br />

match of angle of view was the same, unlike many<br />

zoom lenses, which are really "longer" than they<br />

Page 131


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

are marked. (The Angenieux 25-250 HR is really<br />

more like a 29mm-290mm!)<br />

If you wanted to be critically accurate, you could<br />

make an "angle of view" test chart for a given focal<br />

length and use that to set the focal length the VP<br />

lens before shooting a critical piece.<br />

Bill Bennett, Los Angeles<br />

Page 132


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Aerial Filming<br />

I was curious if anyone had experience shooting<br />

from a biplane? I am shooting on Sunday at an air<br />

show and have the opportunity to shoot from plane<br />

to plane in the open cockpit. I will be hand holding<br />

an Aaton and lensing fairly wide (8-16mm?). I'm<br />

concerned about the vibration but we can't afford a<br />

mount. Is this even possible or will the image be<br />

too shaky? Unfortunately I didn't have the<br />

opportunity to scout flying in the plane. Any<br />

thoughts on this? Thanks.<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

All I can think of is to streamline the camera: no<br />

mattebox, and no rubber<br />

lens shades. Put on an 80 SSLR to series -9 and<br />

about 4-5 retainer rings as<br />

a mini-lens-shade, and tape on the SSLR to further<br />

secure it to the lens.<br />

Page 133


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

That'll take care of the front end of your camera<br />

not being knocked around by what's keeping you<br />

aloft: prop wash.<br />

Mark "flare, shmare...as long as I'm rich" Doering-<br />

Powell<br />

I think you'll be real good in a bi plane, I've shot<br />

out of 172's and 152's<br />

(single wingers) several times - they're very loud<br />

but vibration isn’t a prob.<br />

you can even tighten up to say 50-75mm and keep<br />

it pretty solid. I'm assuming that you'll have a<br />

windshield to break some of the wind.<br />

but if not - no worries. I used to lean out the<br />

window (head shoulder and cam) and get very nice<br />

shots as well. you need a good solid grip on the<br />

cam ; ] but the speeds involved are very low. (50 -<br />

75, less in a by plane?) the wind will grab the cam<br />

when you lean out, also when you pan as the wind<br />

hits the full profile of the side of the cam it will<br />

yank it for a moment - so be ready for that. it's<br />

manageable and might even be a cool look. once<br />

your in the airstream (leaning out) the wind<br />

Page 134


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

provides really a nice resistance flow which when<br />

you brace against - makes a tension that holds the<br />

cam quite solid. you prob can tighten much more<br />

than a 16mm if you need too. if its a gusty day,<br />

ignore all of the above ; ] the prob with a wide lens<br />

will be showing the wing. you have to really lean<br />

out and forward - or tighten the lens to get<br />

around this. if the wing is cool in<br />

the shot - you should have a blast. have a good<br />

shootwingS - excuse,<br />

Caleb<br />

About 6-7 years ago I did some shooting just with<br />

my home video camera<br />

from a biplane. The plane itself (I don't recall what<br />

type) was just as stable as any other except that<br />

the force of the prop wash and wind rushing by,<br />

although at a relatively slow plane-wise 70-80<br />

mph, was rather strong to say the least..<br />

There was a small windscreen which offered limited<br />

protection and as soon as the camera was in the<br />

slipstream you can guess it shook way too much<br />

for anything to be usable. I can only imagine with<br />

Page 135


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

a larger camera. Not to mention the risk of the<br />

camera flying out on it's own. The concern is not<br />

so much loosing the camera as having it fall on<br />

someone. ouch!!! Perhaps think of rigging some<br />

kind of larger wind screen, but pilots and<br />

mechanics probably won't be to keen about adding<br />

pieces (most likely not FAA approved) on an<br />

antique airplane.<br />

A friend of mine (Werner Volkmer) did a<br />

remarkable film about antique<br />

plane collector and airshow pilot Cole Palen about<br />

ten twelve years ago. Perhaps drop him a line at:<br />

aquilon@login.net.<br />

Daniel Villeneuve, csc<br />

I should clarify my earlier post. I don’t know the<br />

end use of your footage. so its really hard to say.<br />

it's do-able, but its not motion free, if some<br />

motion is ok it's very workable. I was getting<br />

shoreline footage for a maritime museum in Maine<br />

last time I was up.<br />

Page 136


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

lots of the footage was a total throw away. (it was<br />

on beta and I just hardly ever shut it off) but some<br />

of the shots were steady and made the cut.<br />

another time I had to get specific buildings on the<br />

ground and had to have the pilot in a holding<br />

pattern and also banked up pretty high with my<br />

side heeled down and sometimes up to get the<br />

shots.<br />

but the best of all was asking the pilot to fly as low<br />

as he dared over a 5k<br />

mountain top (with some wind sheer) so as to crest<br />

a ski slope and tear down the slopes on the other<br />

side- it really was a great shot by about the 3rd<br />

take. I think I had half my body out the window and<br />

was medium wide.<br />

I usually needed several passes to get the shot I<br />

was after because there were so many variables. it<br />

was several years ago I shot from planes and the<br />

way my mind works, time filters out the bad<br />

somewhat & I remember the good parts. I brought<br />

back a load of crap from each flight- but the shots<br />

I needed were there. its not easy, but you can make<br />

it work - and it's FUN.<br />

Page 137


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I just remembered what the trick was for me-<br />

talking the pilot thru it. you have a very small<br />

pocket for a clean shot with all the struts and wing<br />

in the shot, so you sorta find a sweet spot or a<br />

couple of them, which the wind will effect as well<br />

and you'll have to have a zoom to get in just past<br />

the wing obstructions- once you find those sweet<br />

spots the whole trick is the pilot.<br />

I basically held a lock down by muscling it. Id<br />

explain the shot to the pilot and he would basically<br />

do it all, I would just creep the zoom a bit<br />

sometimes and do a very small move here and<br />

there. and then when it wasn’t right I wasn’t shy<br />

about telling him why it didn’t work and lets "try it<br />

again" pilots tend to enjoy the whole thing, gives<br />

them a chance to show their stuff<br />

Caleb "now trapezes on the other hand..." Crosby<br />

When shooting without a mount.... consider<br />

overcranking.<br />

Page 138


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Steve McWilliams<br />

I shot a cinema short on a flying circus and did<br />

quite a bit of hand held with a 2c from a tiger<br />

moth.<br />

Idea already mentioned of overcranking to say<br />

28fps certainly takes out ugly hi freq. type<br />

vibration and human body does wonders for the<br />

rest especially if you use a simple shoulder brace.<br />

Good thing about a biplane is the wings make for<br />

great FG<br />

Have fun<br />

Les Parrott<br />

Forget all the bullshit advice, just go out and do it<br />

hand held as you suggest and concentrate on what<br />

you are doing. Just treat it as a normal every day<br />

job. We did it like that long before Helivision and<br />

other helicopter mounts were invented.<br />

Page 139


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

My serious advice is to make sure you are tightly<br />

strapped in and don’t undo your straps at any time<br />

for anything (I lost a friend on a film called Catch<br />

22 who just floated out of the mid-upper gunners<br />

position when the pilot went into a sudden and<br />

unexpected dive). And don’t walk into the<br />

propeller.<br />

Wear a parachute if it is available.<br />

If flying over water make sure you have an<br />

inflatable life vest and it is accessible to you.<br />

Refuse to fly over water unless this is so.<br />

Make sure no items of equipment can fall down<br />

and jam up any of the flying controls and that you<br />

can get free of it all if you have to make a hurried<br />

exit. (I lost another friend whose spare magazine<br />

jammed a helicopter control).<br />

Wear your exposure meter on a cord around you<br />

neck (its fun when it falls out of your pocket<br />

upwards).<br />

Page 140


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

If you are doing aerobatics and pulling a few G put<br />

a long iris support rod on the camera so that you<br />

can support the camera against the side of the<br />

aircraft. (Formation jet aerobatics are especial fun).<br />

Take an airline sick bag with you. If you do lose<br />

control take some money with you to recompense<br />

the guy who has to clear up after you)<br />

Enjoy<br />

Sincerely<br />

David (wish I was young again) Samuelson<br />

PS I forgot to add ...<br />

Make sure that the production company has<br />

insured you for flight in a non-scheduled aircraft<br />

and that the insurance company fully knows what<br />

you are doing ... and if you do not know and trust<br />

the company ask to see the insurance certificate. (I<br />

once knew four filmmakers who were killed in a<br />

helicopter crash and the production company had<br />

not taken out proper insurance for what they were<br />

doing. The producer was one of those killed.)<br />

Sincerely<br />

Page 141


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

David Samuelson<br />

.<br />

Well, this is the only thing I'd argue about David<br />

(but otherwise what absolutely perfect advice! I was<br />

told that if I was sick, _I_ cleaned up afterwards.<br />

Fortunately, it never happened.<br />

One or two little additions. Make sure the camera is<br />

tied off to a strong point. Also, bear in mind that<br />

things can get very, very cramped. I remember this<br />

especially in a tandem Hunter. Not only is there<br />

very little room, but you are also highly strapped<br />

into an ejector seat. There was only just enough<br />

room for a hand held Arri IIc with 200' mag and<br />

and 18mm.<br />

David's advice about keeping everything safe and<br />

well away from the controls isn't just good advice -<br />

it's VITAL! It' only too easy to overlook these things<br />

in the rush of adrenaline excitement and that's how<br />

people are killed.<br />

Page 142


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I certainly don't want to be a killjoy but like David,<br />

I've lost several friends to aviation accidents - it's<br />

one reason why I got out of it.<br />

Plan, plan, plan.<br />

OK, this may be more important in air to air<br />

shooting, but about 80% of the work is done in the<br />

pre-flight briefing. And once you've briefed, stay<br />

EXACTLY to the brief. Finally, relax and enjoy!<br />

Brian<br />

Well I thought my advice was ok but if David says<br />

its bullshit- its bullshit. I was watching a real good<br />

sea rescue story on TV a couple months back about<br />

the sinking of liner in the Atlantic back a breaking<br />

story because it was taking water while it was<br />

being towed to port in heavy weather. as it neared<br />

England it started going down- and there was no<br />

doubt about it - someone got in a plane and got<br />

there before it went under - really good gutsy b&w<br />

newsreel aerial that just caught the ship as it rolled<br />

over on its beam ends, foundered and sank.<br />

Page 143


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Well I’ll give you one guess who the cameraman<br />

was.<br />

they even interviewed him as to how he got the<br />

shots. (Back in the good old days when news was<br />

news and cameramen got the kudos.) pretty<br />

bullshit interview tho ; ]<br />

Caleb<br />

Actually the advice I got from all the list was<br />

helpful and confirmed some of the ideas I had<br />

wanted to try.<br />

Maybe it was just the pep talk I needed! :-)<br />

David and everyone,<br />

Thanks for all the great advice and encouragement.<br />

It's a fun show I'm shooting.<br />

Tuesday, I hang off the side of a cliff in a harness<br />

to shoot some rock climbers. I've got a great guide<br />

and climbers. Did a lesson a few days ago.<br />

Page 144


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Any idea's or helpful hints on hand-holding on the<br />

side of a cliff?<br />

Thanks again,<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

The first time some of us met, about a year ago,<br />

the subject of pre-aerial food come up, if you'll<br />

pardon the expression, and I passed on the results<br />

of 3 weeks research filming the north sea oil rigs in<br />

every type of helicopter and every kind of weather<br />

from force 10 down.<br />

The only thing that really worked for breakfast was<br />

beans, hash browns and toast, they come back in a<br />

lump and aren't hard to clean up :-)<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff<br />

Dear Aerial Upchuckers,<br />

Page 145


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I always found that the small plastic sealable bags<br />

from M&S or any similar store were a great help.<br />

Fortunately those days are long gone and flying my<br />

desk at 4ft. is about as bad as it gets these days.<br />

Regards<br />

TC<br />

PS: Eat the food and drink sparingly; that helps<br />

lots.<br />

Careful to watch your horizon. 'Tis easier than you<br />

think to hold a camera skewed when your feet are<br />

not on the ground.<br />

Been there, done that.<br />

Cliff "climbing for over 20 years" Hancuff<br />

David wrote<br />

"PS I forgot to add ...<br />

Page 146


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Make sure that the production company has<br />

insured you for flight in a non-scheduled aircraft<br />

and that the insurance company fully knows what<br />

you are doing ... and if you do not know and trust<br />

the company ask to see the insurance certificate. "<br />

The same applies to watercraft and those that drive<br />

them:<br />

"Yes I know you've got a limited budget and the<br />

chase boat operator wanted more money than you<br />

budgeted for but so does my camera and the<br />

future support of my children."<br />

"I did mention at that production meeting last<br />

month that for me a worse not best case scenario<br />

is a 12ft aluminium dingy borrowed from the<br />

sailing club and somebody's mate (a weekend<br />

sailor) driving it. It would be bad enough that he<br />

doesn’t have a commercial licence but this<br />

character has no licence at all."<br />

"Not only would we be breaking the (local) law but<br />

also voiding our insurance coverage for loss or<br />

damage to ourselves and our equipment as well as<br />

anything else we might hit!!!!"<br />

Page 147


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

And then some people call me difficult :-)<br />

M.C.<br />

Page 148


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Baggage<br />

I know we have had a lot written about film going<br />

through the airport system but there have been<br />

some recent changes (in the LA area) that affect<br />

how things are carried on board an airplane. When<br />

I fly a major airline I always pack the most critical<br />

job related equipment with me. I ask, what do I<br />

absolutely need to do the job I'm travelling to?<br />

Number one is usually my meter case which<br />

contains a<br />

selection of hand tools for emergency situations.<br />

Only once did I have my meters refused because of<br />

the tool kit inside (on a puddle jumper in<br />

Australia), but now LAX will no longer allow tools<br />

on planes.<br />

There also has been a severe clamping down on<br />

the 2 bag limit carryon. Moreover, today I found<br />

they had recently installed a precisely cut door to<br />

pass carry on luggage through when putting it on<br />

the X-ray belt.<br />

All these changes mean modifying the way things<br />

get distributed. One must be comfortable that gear<br />

Page 149


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

is not going to be stolen, let alone be sent to the<br />

wrong hemisphere.<br />

So what goes on the plane in the overhead? OK,<br />

there's the importance of the the gear for the job,<br />

then I guess there is the value of all the ancillary<br />

toys (most of which take batteries and I seem to<br />

own more and more of) and then there's always a<br />

couple of items that just make sitting for hours in a<br />

dry tin can more tolerable. It feels like the old "ten<br />

pounds of feathers in a five pound bag" routine!<br />

Whew,<br />

I'm sorry, but I think I just need to vent out some<br />

frustrations. But I would like to know what other<br />

folks are bringing on board when they don't<br />

actually have to bring the camera kit with them.<br />

Eric Swenson<br />

I take...<br />

meters (4)<br />

still gear (Nikon and 2 lenses)<br />

leatherman (stuck against bottom of still<br />

camera so to x-ray it looks<br />

Page 150


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

like camera)<br />

polaroid<br />

swatch books<br />

Misc. junk box (laser pointer, directors finder)<br />

Books and manuals I usually just throw in my<br />

briefcase. I've been able to the above in a medium<br />

Pelican. It’s a tight squeeze. If I need something<br />

bigger than a leatherman toolwise, I tell the Gaffer<br />

or Key to bring it.<br />

Does anyone use the newer Pelican case, the<br />

one that rolls?<br />

I look forward to seeing you cats at Showbiz<br />

Expo,<br />

Kurt Rauf/DP<br />

Hi guys,<br />

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

my shoulder bag.<br />

I have to confess I would never do this. I guess<br />

this is because Heathrow and Gatwick are probably<br />

among the highest security airports in the world.<br />

Also given that it's impossible here to enter the city<br />

Page 151


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

of London in a camera car with blacked out<br />

windows without a search. I guess people of my<br />

generation (I was born in 1970) just take the<br />

security as normal and that anything in our hand<br />

baggage that could be considered as dangerous<br />

will just be a pain in the neck for both ourselves<br />

and the security personnel.<br />

When I travel I take the camera body (SRII without<br />

eye piece or mag) and<br />

the 11-110 Zeiss zoom in a pelican 1500 box (the<br />

only pelican I have). This travels on the aeroplane<br />

with me. Next time I travel I will take a little<br />

battery with me.<br />

The reason for this is that when I went to the States<br />

the security people in Chicago asked me all sorts<br />

of questions about the camera and asked me to<br />

"flash" it as if it were a mobile telephone. I was<br />

unable to do so due to the lack of power. I took<br />

all the caps off and showed them how it worked<br />

and they were kinda happy. This always goes<br />

hand baggage. I also carry the stock as hand<br />

baggage. I usually ask the cameraman to carry my<br />

laptop on.<br />

Page 152


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

As far as hold baggage goes. The empty camera<br />

box gets filled with all sorts of stuff T-bar in a<br />

special plastic box, spare mag, batteries,<br />

underpants, teddy bear all the important stuff<br />

really.<br />

ALLWAYS take my Bolex regardless of how tight the<br />

excess is. Everything else just travels as is. As<br />

far as security goes I put a piece of camera tape<br />

over the lid of each box and then put a cross<br />

across the tape and spilling a little onto the box.<br />

This is almost impossible to tamper with.<br />

Also VITALLY important are labels... with at least<br />

the following information.<br />

Name of production ...<br />

Name of production company ...<br />

Telephone number of London production office<br />

Out of hours number for the production office<br />

(anyone !!!)<br />

Instructions to call the above numbers should this<br />

box be delayed for any reason.<br />

USELESS IF DELAYED in big letters.<br />

Page 153


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The only reason I do this is because it should help<br />

if for any reason the gear should end up in the<br />

wrong place at the wrong time. In some ways it is<br />

looking for special treatment for your equipment.<br />

I kind of hope that it is taken by airport staff that<br />

way without appearing too arrogant. What you<br />

have to keep in your mind is that these people also<br />

handle other goods that make our kit look<br />

extremely unimportant. By labelling the boxes<br />

properly with instructions as to what to do in the<br />

event of a delay if nothing else covers you bottom<br />

with the production if anything goes wrong.<br />

Justin Pentecost<br />

At OpTex, when we sent equipment overseas we<br />

put on security tags to all the cases. These are a<br />

little like cable ties but have a numbered tag<br />

attached.<br />

You _can't_ remove them without destroying them.<br />

We also give the crew a handful for transshipment.<br />

Page 154


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

OK, much of the time, the equipment goes freight<br />

in any case, so that security is just that little bit<br />

tighter. However, it's important to understand that<br />

the word FRAGILE on the side of a case, actually<br />

means, PLEASE DROP THIS CASE FROM A MINIMUM<br />

HEIGHT OF 20 FEET (3M).<br />

Having said that, we've experience very little<br />

shipping damage, perhaps 2 or 3 incidents in the<br />

last 4 years.<br />

Now, like most UK companies, we spend a fortune<br />

of flight cases. This are big, aluminium cases fitted<br />

with hard foam. They are very expensive, but they<br />

do protect the equipment. The worst damage we've<br />

experienced was when a case was destroyed in a<br />

controlled explosion' when it was left unattended<br />

at Heathrow Airport.<br />

It seems we are divided into two camps. There are<br />

those who, at any cost, do not wish to reveal they<br />

are carrying film gear, and there are those who<br />

insist on letting everyone know that they are. In the<br />

UK at least, I suspect that the latter comes from the<br />

historical BBC. The British Broadcasting<br />

Corporation was, in the past, treated somewhat<br />

like Royalty, or at the very least had Presidential<br />

Page 155


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

status. Customs officers would give you a polite<br />

bow as you presented your credentials and would<br />

even insist on carrying the cases for you. That was<br />

in olden times!<br />

In the democratic USA, things, it seems are<br />

somewhat different. Little has<br />

changed in New York it seems, apart from the fact<br />

that the muggers now say 'pardon me!' before<br />

ripping off your gear. :-)<br />

Brian (It now seems compulsory to add a middlename<br />

comment) Rose<br />

When in town, I carry my meters in a pelican case -<br />

helps to keep them from getting squashed in the<br />

truck....<br />

However, when I travel, I use one of those still<br />

photographers bags - holds my meters, still<br />

cameras, magazines (the kind you read) and<br />

anything else I feel I couldn't do without if<br />

everything else were to get lost. The soft (yet<br />

Page 156


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

padded) bag helps to fit into all the different<br />

shaped overheads - works well as a pillow too for<br />

those long van rides to and from location.<br />

Ted Hayash<br />

I ALWAYS put the dates, flight numbers and<br />

destinations of all flights on a tag on each checked<br />

bag...even the connecting flight numbers. I have<br />

had cases come through with the scanner tags<br />

ripped off...<br />

I have to believe that someone read my cameratape<br />

tags and sent them through. That's probably<br />

not what actually happened, but it couldn't hurt.<br />

Regarding hard case/softer cases...<br />

While I concur that it makes sense to use cases that<br />

will show abuse, I also know that big heavy cases<br />

get worse handling than smaller lighter cases...and<br />

the extra mass is not always beneficial. When we<br />

shipped our IMAX package, rigging gear, and misc.<br />

production equipt. to China, we also brought a IIC<br />

Page 157


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

with a couple of mags ...wrapped in bits of foam<br />

and stuffed in a lightweight fiber case. It survived<br />

not only the airlines but all the trucking and<br />

boating that we did...and it was so light that no<br />

one ever dropped it on<br />

the ground...unlike the IMAX body shipping case<br />

that was beat half to death by the journeys. A<br />

slightly more resilient case will transmit less shock<br />

to the delicate toys inside it than a totally rigid<br />

anvil case...as long as it doesn't get TOO deformed.<br />

It's all a game of odds anyway...no case will help<br />

you if they are determined to run over it with a big<br />

enough airport vehicle.<br />

BTW, I carried my leatherman through Heathrow 4<br />

times with no<br />

hassle....but they insisted on X-raying my Polaroid<br />

film.<br />

Oh, well<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

Page 158


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

On my last trip to Chicago I packed my 2C, lenses,<br />

motors etc in one of the new Pelican cases with the<br />

wheels. Packed my fluid head and Dutch head in a<br />

smaller pelican, although still large, and my sticks,<br />

standard and baby and high hat in one of those<br />

hard cases designed to carry golf clubs.<br />

Thankfully everything arrived safe and sound. I<br />

had Kodak ship to the film to the client's office and<br />

got around the problem of X-rayed stock by<br />

processing and transferring locally.<br />

I did notice the large Pelican case had a few dings<br />

in it after this one trip,<br />

but the camera arrived safe and sound...I did<br />

padlock the case and the case weighed in at over<br />

70 lbs. so that hopefully flinging it with any<br />

abandon was stopped.<br />

All my best<br />

Chet Simmons<br />

I worked with a still photographer years ago when I<br />

was starting out who travelled world-wide on a<br />

Page 159


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

regular basis. He packed all his gear in lightweight<br />

FiberBuilt cases, and packed several of them very<br />

heavy. I asked him how long he had been flying<br />

with these new cases. I was shocked to find out<br />

that these cases were not new, they were 3 years<br />

old!<br />

He said that he had seen how his equipment had<br />

been treated when he packed it in Anvil cases and<br />

switched to these. He had seen<br />

these Anvil cases thrown like an Olympic sport by<br />

baggage handlers. These FiberBuilt cases looked a<br />

couple weeks old, at most. He said that when<br />

handlers pick up such flimsy cases they actually<br />

treat them with kid gloves for fear that they will<br />

break the handles off of them.<br />

Go figure.<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

The D.P. on our IMAX shoot was Burleigh Wartes,<br />

my mentor. As anyone who remembers him will<br />

attest, his strongest phobia in equipment packing<br />

Page 160


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

was "metal-to-metal contact...his strongest mania<br />

was for light equipment and light cases.<br />

He was constantly drilling holes in lights and<br />

changing them from three conductor to two<br />

conductor cable to save weight...and as someone<br />

who carried them for miles, I can attest to the<br />

difference.<br />

We had ancient fiber expando cases and hinged<br />

cases full of lighting and camera equipment . I<br />

have been shipping my CECO lock-off head<br />

(suitable for any format :-)) in a fiber case that was<br />

ancient when I bought it much used when Francis<br />

Thompson Inc. closed their big office. The case<br />

was old in 1984 when it held two 30v. block batts.<br />

It still hasn't been punched through.<br />

Those lightweight fiber cases do look a bit cheap<br />

and tawdry...but mine have survived more plane<br />

flights than I can count. Occasionally I have to<br />

rivet on a new latch, but I have been pretty lucky<br />

with only one or two penetrations.<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

Page 161


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Have cases, will travel...where do you want to go<br />

today?<br />

I suspect my Pelican cases kinda say to the<br />

handlers in the airports...Bonk<br />

me, throw me, abuse me. Perhaps I could switch to<br />

ice-chests and put Organ Donor stickers on the<br />

outside. Or just paint the Pelican cases with<br />

spray- paint so they look junky. I noticed B&H had<br />

some nylon covers for Halburton cases so they'd be<br />

stealthier. I just like the Pelican cases as I've seen<br />

my gear sitting on a baggage cart in the rain, along<br />

with other less fortunate luggage.<br />

Chet Simmons<br />

I have been travelling lighter and lighter, due to<br />

the fact that more and more manuals and assorted<br />

other paperwork is available in digital form. I know<br />

that right now we have the 435 manual and Quick<br />

Page 162


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Guides for the 435, 535B and SR 3 available in<br />

Adobe Acrobat form, as well as some Technical<br />

Notes (check out our website), and that Aaton has<br />

some of their manuals also in Acrobat form. If you<br />

take a Laptop anyway, this does not add ANY<br />

weight, and you can leave those manuals at home.<br />

Cheers,<br />

Marc Shipman-Mueller , Technical Representative<br />

Arriflex Corporation<br />

Page 163


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Bleach Bypass and related<br />

processes<br />

Does anyone out there have experience with any<br />

kind of bleach bypass process? I have been<br />

fascinated by this since reading AC's article on<br />

Seven, shot by Darius Khondji. I believe he used<br />

some variation on this process on Delicatessen,<br />

City of Lost Children, as well as Evita.<br />

Kristian Bernier<br />

I have run bleach bypass before. It's a nice idea.<br />

Basically, the color negative process uses a first<br />

developer to produce B&W images on all three<br />

color layers, formed from metallic silver just like<br />

with a B&W film. Then a color developer links dyes<br />

up in areas where there is a silver image, and that<br />

silver image is bleached out.<br />

If you reduce or eliminate the bleach, you have a<br />

metallic silver B&W image superimposed on your<br />

color image. This gives you a nice pastel effect and<br />

it also gives you as much as a full stop more film<br />

Page 164


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

speed. I have used it for documentary work in dark<br />

night-clubs where I needed the extra speed and<br />

rather liked the muted color effects.<br />

Shoot a test roll! Try it! It's fun!<br />

Scott Dorsey<br />

Since this process is normally done to prints, it<br />

does not endanger the negative in any way - you<br />

always have the option of just making a normal<br />

print. So the bond companies shouldn't worry.<br />

But perhaps this is why Storaro flashes his prints<br />

instead of the negative, as Khondji does, before the<br />

bleach-bypass. (Flashing a print also looks<br />

different.)<br />

David Mullen<br />

Even if you do a bleach bypass process on the<br />

original negative, the effect is not permanent. If<br />

you, (or the bond company bean counters) are<br />

unhappy with the "look" of the bleach bypass<br />

Page 165


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

process, you can have the lab re-run the negative<br />

through the processor. This time bypassing the<br />

first developer, and going through the (previously<br />

skipped) bleach tank. This renders a normally<br />

processed and looking negative.<br />

So, for once, you CAN have you cake and eat it too!<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

A couple of notes:<br />

You do lose some colour saturation, which you<br />

might like, but you could test a light coral to<br />

restore a bit of flesh tone.<br />

At the risk of sounding patronising, do let your<br />

production and costume designers know what<br />

you're planning, because the exposure threshold<br />

for darker tones is lifted appreciably, and those<br />

"subtle, dark colours" will be mostly, well, black...<br />

A side-effect of the above quality is that incidental<br />

eyelights tend to disappear, especially in dark<br />

pupils, so unless you have an intentional source for<br />

the eye, focus sometimes seems questionable. I<br />

write as a focus puller who has had to draw<br />

Page 166


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

attention to clothing, ears and hairlines in order to<br />

convince Production in rushes.<br />

Nevertheless, I love it...<br />

Sam Garwood<br />

No BLEACH leaves all the silver image in the film as<br />

well as the dye image.<br />

The end result is a denser image with all the colors<br />

and "bullet-proof" blacks. The image is therefore<br />

very desaturated and more contrasty.<br />

No bleach ACCELERATOR leaves half the silver<br />

image so its effect is not as pronounced.<br />

These methods do not work well with IP stock.<br />

The process should be applied to soft, muted-<br />

color, low contrast images.<br />

Avoid maroons and navy blues because they will go<br />

black. (Unless, of course, you want this effect -- I<br />

have, sometimes.) Same thing with red lipstick/nail<br />

polish -- test it first! (Yeah, right, like there's ever<br />

any time.)<br />

It helps to use diffusion during principal<br />

photography -- take a look at Evita -- you can see<br />

Page 167


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

nets in the lens flares of some shots; a perfect<br />

example.<br />

Steve.<br />

I just read the article in Lighting Dimensions and it<br />

was informative. I did find the part about the ENR<br />

process confusing though. It discussed the bleach<br />

bypass used in 'Seven' and the ENR used in 'Evita'<br />

as if they distinct and different processes. The<br />

article didn't go into details but it could refer to the<br />

fact that in 'Evita' he retained only about 30-40% of<br />

the silver versus the complete bypass in 'Seven'.<br />

Anybody have more info?<br />

I also found interesting Darius comment about<br />

liking to keep his lighting sources as far away as<br />

possible for a more natural look. Common wisdom,<br />

at least in the commercial /music video world that<br />

comprises most of my work, is to get your sources<br />

as close to your subject as you can for that glowing<br />

soft wrap.<br />

DW<br />

Page 168


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've just returned from Foto-Kem’s demo of their<br />

bleach bypass service. An interesting demo,<br />

showing the results from b-b on the neg., the<br />

print, the IP, IN, and release print<br />

I'd like to hear from others who have used this (or<br />

other similar process, i.e. ENR). Was the decision<br />

made in prep, or did you decide after the fact? If<br />

planned for, did you alter the shooting for this (i.e.<br />

use low-cons, more saturated colors in art<br />

direction, etc.)? What would you do different next<br />

time? If anyone has knowledge of articles that<br />

would be helpful too, but I'd really like to hear first<br />

hand experiences.<br />

Dave "it costs HOW much!?!" Trulli<br />

Sorry to butt in here, but I checked out the Foto-<br />

Kem demo also. The presenters were ok, but we<br />

were stuck in a small screening room with the<br />

projector and four seats<br />

Page 169


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

<br />

The contrast did go up. Way up on some cases.<br />

Regarding colors, sometime when looking at<br />

buildings it looked Black & White. At to harsh and<br />

grainy, I wouldn't say grainy, but I would say harsh<br />

Did they show any tests that were combined with<br />

flashing either the positive or the negative?<br />

(Darius Khondji flashes his negatives / Storaro<br />

flashes his prints - in<br />

conjunction with ENR or bleach-bypassing.)>><br />

They didn't have any test involving flashing, sad to<br />

say. I found the whole process intriguing, but<br />

Foto-Kem's process bugs me because it's all or<br />

nothing.<br />

With ENR you can dial in some degree of control.<br />

One process they showed that I like was that they<br />

made prints from prints. It gave this neat looking<br />

very contrasty, super saturated color feel. Could<br />

be used in a music video format.<br />

Scott Spears<br />

Page 170


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

It's true, a bleach by-pass can desaturate colors<br />

and can make blacks look great, but it does<br />

increase the contrast and you can lose shadow<br />

detail. Sometimes you can get the same results<br />

with a PARTIAL bleach bypass without the<br />

corresponding contrast gain and shadow loss. The<br />

partial bypass in combination with the proper<br />

timing and (if necessary) a pull process may allow<br />

one to have the best of all worlds.<br />

Bob Lancaster<br />

Alpha Cine Labs<br />

The Foto-Kem demo was interesting. The look of<br />

bleach bypass is quite different depending on<br />

when you do it. All of the looks attained were<br />

interesting, but for feature type work I think b-b<br />

on the release prints was the most pleasing. Of<br />

course this is also the most expensive option. B-b<br />

on the negative was pretty strange, whites went<br />

neon white, like blown out video. Color saturation<br />

was lowest when done to the release print, highest<br />

when done to the negative.<br />

Page 171


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The demo I saw did include flashing (10 + 20%) the<br />

neg. At 20% the blacks looked milky, 10% was<br />

closer to the look of b-b on the r-prints - but not<br />

that close. Unfortunately, the demo footage at this<br />

point was pretty high contrast already, it would've<br />

been interesting to see the effect with lower con<br />

stuff.<br />

B-b in the IP or IN stage was closer to the look of<br />

b-b on the negative. BTW, some of the footage<br />

used for the test is from a movie in production<br />

recently. They said that he wanted the r-prints<br />

bleach bypassed but the producers nixed the idea.<br />

Funny, though, I liked the normal footage best in<br />

this case. I'd like to hear the DP's thoughts<br />

sometime (I'll respect his privacy and not name<br />

names).<br />

Gotta go.<br />

Dave Trulli<br />

As I understand it, the beauty is if you don't like<br />

the effect the Lab can<br />

>>re-bleach at a later time, taking it back to<br />

Page 172


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

normal. Is this a major deal<br />

>(i.e.: expensive) for a Lab to set up?<br />

True: but if you have modified your exposure<br />

(often necessary on BB processes) or ordered pullprocessing,<br />

then you finish up with neither one<br />

thing nor the other. The process is simple - it's<br />

just the same as re-processing or "rewashing".<br />

Your lab will face exactly the same costs as for the<br />

first run through (i.e. normal developing).<br />

In the case of BB prints, the lab needs to print them<br />

a bit under a stop lighter to balance the extra<br />

density of the silver. Once again, a rebleached<br />

print will be unacceptably light. Still, if you can't<br />

use the BB'd reel, you can extract the silver from it<br />

and sell it :-)<br />

>>I'd like to know how you'd do a partial bypass<br />

(sounds like heart<br />

>>surgery), and how to specify it to the lab (i.e. "in<br />

the soup half normal<br />

>time"? ... or "20%"?).<br />

How to specify it? - talk to your lab - every one will<br />

have a different approach.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

Page 173


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

> SE7EN looked really good. It had saturation was<br />

really inter esting and the > blacks were black. How<br />

did Darius Khondji do it?? It seems he had the best<br />

> of both worlds. Did he flash the neg.? I don't<br />

know, but I want to.<br />

He shot "Seven" in Super35, mostly on 5293<br />

pushed one stop; he also flashed the negative.<br />

Then the print was bleach-bypassed. I don't know<br />

if he rated the filmstock faster due to the pushdeveloping,<br />

or if he left it at 200 ASA and just let<br />

the pushing add density. He said that the pushing<br />

increased saturation, while the flashing lowered it<br />

and the contrast, and the bleach-bypass added<br />

contrast and lowered saturation. He also used<br />

some 5287 for some night photography, and 5245<br />

for the ending daylight scenes.<br />

I think he might have used the Panaflasher for his<br />

flashing. (In "Evita", he used the Varicon; he did<br />

less pushing, used diffusion filters, shot in<br />

anamorphic, and used the ENR process.)<br />

The studio wouldn't pay for all release prints of<br />

"Seven" to be bleach-bypassed, so after an initial<br />

Page 174


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

print run for the major theaters, an I.P. was bleachbypassed<br />

and more release prints were made from<br />

an I.N. struck from that.<br />

David Mullen<br />

Storaro has a different approach than Khondji - he<br />

goes for an over -exposed negative, processed<br />

normal, and uses the ENR process on his prints,<br />

which is capable of varying the degree of the re-<br />

silvering effect. He also flashes his prints, which<br />

softens the contrast by darkening the highlights,<br />

leaving the blacks very dark. He probably has to<br />

make a very light print as a starting point.<br />

I've wanted to try any of these effects for years<br />

(assuming that it was<br />

right for the project), but the budgets of my films<br />

preclude any of this...<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 175


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

> a bleach by-pass can desaturate colors and can<br />

make blacks look<br />

great, but it does increase the contrast and you can<br />

lose shadow detail.<<br />

An interesting alternative to bleach-bypass is to<br />

strike two intermed<br />

positives, one in colour and one in b/w. By doubleexposing<br />

the neg. with<br />

different proportions of the two (otherwise<br />

identical) positives, you can<br />

achieve various degrees of colour desaturation<br />

without losing shadow detail or affecting the<br />

contrast... or so I've heard. Never had the chance to<br />

try it out myself. Anyone have first-hand<br />

experience?<br />

Chris Rowe<br />

Yes, we did it on sections of a remarkable Aussie<br />

film last year called "What I Have Written" shot by<br />

Dion Beebe ACS. The sections were actually also<br />

freeze frames, which took up about a third of the<br />

film. (yes, yes, a la Chris Marker's La Jettee).<br />

Page 176


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The result was an "almost black and white" look,<br />

with just faint hints of colour in some areas:<br />

occasionally flesh tones, a red scarf, a purple<br />

overcoat. The colours were all very dark and<br />

desaturated - very subtle. Of course, it's equally<br />

possible to go for a predominantly colour look by<br />

selecting a different percentage of b/w to colour.<br />

The difficulty is that every shot needed a different<br />

proportion of b/w to colour to get a consistent<br />

look.<br />

The good thing is that - with sufficient testing -<br />

you have that much control in post production.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

The process does not give as rich blacks as you<br />

would have with bleach bypass. As a matter of<br />

fact, I don't think the two systems are even<br />

comparable. The double-interpositive system<br />

gives a desaturated look but without as much<br />

increase in contrast and the blacks are not as rich.<br />

Also, colours tend to react differently when<br />

Page 177


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

combined with their black and white equivalents -<br />

this does not really happen with bleach bypass.<br />

Jon Mendelssohn<br />

Hi,<br />

we are about to finish a feature and use the Bleach<br />

By Pass (60%) process at the stage of the IP at Rank<br />

in London. It is not the same than ENR process that<br />

can be applied only on positive prints. The process<br />

will be used for about 60% of our film, the<br />

remaining part being printed normally to IP. We've<br />

done tests and the result of the 60% Bleach By Pass<br />

looks great, but we've not tested yet how to<br />

intercut a regular IP with a Bleach By Pass IP. What<br />

if the director wants to dissolve from one to the<br />

other? can we A&B the two IPs to go to IN? What<br />

control must be done at the lab? Does anyone have<br />

experienced that process?<br />

Georges Jardon, Postproduction Jardon et associée,<br />

Page 178


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

We used the Bleach bypass IP process for a feature<br />

recently: it's a good method as it's less savage than<br />

treating the original negative, while many<br />

distributors won't pay to treat every print. Best of<br />

both worlds. However, no-one sees the final<br />

results even at Answer Print off original neg. stage<br />

- you have to wait for the dupe neg. And as for<br />

rushes/dailies . . . - we actually had one magazine<br />

set aside for a quick burst on every set-up, and<br />

that became a weekly test roll that went through<br />

the entire process. Meanwhile, telecine set up a<br />

transfer "look" that emulated the final Bleach<br />

Bypass result. It's now the only telecine in town<br />

that has a bleach bypass button;-)<br />

Regarding your question: A lot depends on how<br />

your lab has set up the IP. Ideally, they have<br />

modified the printing exposure so that the BBIP has<br />

the same density and requires the same set-up to<br />

print back to DN as the plain regular IP. If that's<br />

the case, then you should have no trouble<br />

intercutting or even A/B dissolving the two IPs.<br />

Although remember that dissolves from positive<br />

behave slightly differently from dissolves from<br />

negative (in the way that highlights or shadows<br />

hang on or appear first, most noticeable in long<br />

dissolves). This might be significant given that you<br />

Page 179


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

would be dissolving to or from a very high contrast<br />

image.<br />

If the lab has not anticipated this, they may<br />

possibly have trouble mixing the two IPs. Talk to<br />

them NOW. Out of interest, what provisions did you<br />

make in lighting, exposure, and wardrobe etc, for<br />

the bleach bypass effect. And what stock did you<br />

shoot? In our case, we found, in extensive testing<br />

by the DoP, that (a), some colours shifted a bit (she<br />

was using filtration as well, but the BB exaggerated<br />

its effect) and (b), that, using higher speed stocks,<br />

the grain blew up in some colours - particularly<br />

yellows.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Page 180


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Blue V Green Screens<br />

Hello All,<br />

This is puzzling me for some time. I do quite some<br />

blue screen photography, video and film, and used<br />

greenscreen only a few times when the project<br />

called for pronounced blue colored foreground<br />

elements. In using green backgrounds I personally<br />

feel I need to invest more time on the set in getting<br />

rid of green spill on the subjects than I have to do<br />

with blue. The Green reflects more color and also,<br />

if ever a slight blue cast remains sometimes in a<br />

composite, I feel it is generally less disturbing than<br />

a spill of green color.<br />

During the BKSTS SFX 96 seminar, Mitch Mitchell<br />

held an interesting presentation quite strongly<br />

promoting blue screen, not green. Among other<br />

arguments he made the point that the human<br />

(white) skin tone does not contain any blue, so one<br />

can obtain better masks on blue, especially on<br />

human skin, thus leaving the skin tones and<br />

richness more easily untouched by the process.<br />

Page 181


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Another presentation related difficulties on the<br />

composites for the final sequence of "Goldeneye"<br />

having cost a lot of work removing green spills, the<br />

presenter expressing regrets the shoot was not<br />

done on blue. During an SFX 98 presentation, there<br />

was a story about white polar bears shot against<br />

green in studio (plenty of green spill on them,<br />

especially their feet and between their legs) and<br />

the presenter once again made us understand that<br />

to his opinion he would have had an easier job if<br />

blue screen would have been used.<br />

All this said, what puzzles me, is that on the BIG<br />

majority of photo's I see in magazines like AC,<br />

"making off" documentaries etc of major feature<br />

productions I every time see the use of green<br />

screens rather then blue. Blue screen seem to be<br />

rare exeptions.<br />

How come, every time I hear someone from the<br />

post-production side talk about this, I hear them<br />

begging for blue while apparently green seems to<br />

be mainstream now.<br />

Why do so many people use green. What are the<br />

advantages? Are there any advantages besides the<br />

Page 182


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

possible use of saturated blue in the foreground<br />

elements?<br />

Any thoughts ? What do you prefer ? Your<br />

experiences with post-houses on the subject?<br />

I also see advertisements of red screens now. Is<br />

this a new hype? Or just a solution for those rare<br />

cases we have blue and green in the foreground?<br />

How about skin tones on red-screen? Anybody<br />

used it?<br />

Regards,<br />

Kommer, puzzled :-) Kleijn<br />

I think that a lot of the preference of post facilities<br />

for green is to do with the fact that they don't<br />

understand film. They think that because green is<br />

the major component of a video signal and also the<br />

cleanest component of a video signal then it's the<br />

best way to go.<br />

Page 183


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

They don't seem to take into consideration that the<br />

format that the image originates in has an<br />

influence as well.<br />

I prefer using blue, I have less problems with blue,<br />

I get some very strange requests from post at<br />

times :-)<br />

Geoff Boyle geoff@cinematography.net<br />

Actually, it's usually the opposite; with most color<br />

screen packages, green spill resolves to brown or<br />

grey. Bluescreen spill resolves to a teal or greenish<br />

color - very rarely grey. This means that any<br />

transparent edges you have - hair, bottles, smoke<br />

- will have more believable color with green<br />

screens.<br />

Regarding spill, there's no excuse for it. If you<br />

ever see the color cast of the screen in the final<br />

composite, just fire your post guy. Don't waste<br />

time dealing with him. Ultimatte, Primatte, and my<br />

software, The Matte Pack, can handle any<br />

Page 184


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

conceivable amount of spill, and my software is<br />

under $500, so it's not a cost issue.<br />

>During the BKSTS SFX 96 seminar, Mitch Mitchell<br />

held an interesting<br />

>presentation quite strongly promoting blue<br />

screen, not green>arguments >he made the point<br />

that the human (white) skin tone does not<br />

>contain any blue, so one can obtain better masks<br />

on blue, especially on >human skin, thus leaving<br />

the skin tones and richness more easily<br />

>untouched by the process.<br />

That's a common myth from the optical printer<br />

days. Caucasian skin does indeed contain blue - if<br />

it didn't, it would be deep orange. It just contains<br />

slightly less blue than green or red. Notice I say<br />

"slightly." Skintone has not much to do with<br />

pulling mattes; the colorspace of white skin is so<br />

far from the colorspace of the screen that it should<br />

never be a problem. In terms of leaving skin tones<br />

untouched, it's not a good idea. All color screen<br />

subjects will experience a slight overall color cast,<br />

whether by reflection or lens flare. If you simply try<br />

to composite the foreground "untouched," the<br />

subject will often look pale with blue screen, and<br />

sick with green screen. ;) All high-end tools<br />

Page 185


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

remove this cast automatically, so no composite is<br />

"untouched," really.<br />

The different screens have their place - blue screen<br />

is obviously better for this type of thing, since a lot<br />

of footage is to be composited against the sky.<br />

However, what it boils down to is "different color,<br />

same problem." Why wasn't he expressing regrets<br />

that the shoot was not done WELL? Thousands of<br />

green screen composites show up in theaters every<br />

year, and I would venture that even professionals<br />

only notice one in a hundred. Take a look at Titanic<br />

- that film had so much difficult green screen<br />

work, but it's invisible on screen. Remember that<br />

the blue-sensitive layer of the emulsion has the<br />

highest granularity, which is amplified when you<br />

pull the matte. Green is not nearly as grainy, so it<br />

produces a much more pure matte. That gives you<br />

more flexibility in compositing. This is why red<br />

screens are shot for motion control - it produces<br />

the best matte possible by using the best emulsion<br />

layer.<br />

>Why do so many people use green. What are the<br />

advantages?<br />

Page 186


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Better matte, spill resolves better, not many<br />

subjects include green. The reason bluescreen was<br />

so popular was that in the photo-chemical<br />

compositing/optical printer days, they had no spill<br />

correction, so an uncorrected blue foreground<br />

looked better than the uncorrected green.<br />

>I also see advertisements of red screens now. Is<br />

this a new hype<br />

I don't believe red screens have been used for<br />

shooting people yet - it would certainly not pull a<br />

good matte. Redscreens are used for shooting<br />

motion control passes, of miniatures primarily. It<br />

came to us from TV sci/fi work. The theory is that<br />

first you shoot a "beauty pass" - a motion control<br />

pass against a black backdrop, with the subject<br />

model lit for beauty. Then you shoot the same<br />

model with no subject lights against a red screen,<br />

so what you get is the black silhouette of the<br />

model against a solid red background. You get a<br />

great matte from the redscreen, which you use to<br />

composite the beauty pass. The mattes and<br />

composites this system generates are quite<br />

incredible.<br />

Page 187


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

This was utilized in Steamship Troopers - you can<br />

read about it in Cinefex 75. Some people also<br />

shoot magenta screen. Anyway, those are just my<br />

notes about the technical aspects.<br />

Ben Syverson<br />

Certainly in the feature world, the various post<br />

houses ask for blue or green based on, among<br />

other things, what their custom software "fixes"<br />

have been built for. This is the "if what you have in<br />

your hands is a hammer, all your problems look<br />

like nails" syndrome.<br />

I think that some of them feel that their clean-up<br />

programs work well enough that the other<br />

advantages that they feel they have outweigh the<br />

spill issues.<br />

I have worked a lot with blue, green, and red, and<br />

they all spill.<br />

Page 188


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Red is great for blue/green spaceships<br />

(Independence Day) and fine for that sort of thing<br />

in general, but not great for people.<br />

From the standpoint of on-set comfort, blue is<br />

rougher on the eyes than green (if lit with narrow<br />

band sources) and on at least one job I did that<br />

was a consideration -with several months of first<br />

unit on a 12,000 sq. ft green screen stage there<br />

was some effort made to crew comfort. If it's only<br />

the effects unit, no one cares :-)<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

I see 2 differences.<br />

1. Blue has a lot less "power". It is by nature a<br />

"dark" color. It is harder to get a blue cast into<br />

something already lit in white that a green cast. In<br />

a B/W television signal f.e. the blue channel<br />

accounts for only 11% while the green has 59%. A<br />

green screen receiving the same amount of light<br />

produces more than 5 times more reflected light<br />

Page 189


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

(theoretically). That means that blue reflections will<br />

less easy influence lit parts of you subject then<br />

green supposing your subject is lit with (close to)<br />

white light. The 5 times are not true in reality<br />

because we tend to slightly<br />

"overexpose" blue screens for better key. But not<br />

2.5 stops, more like 1 stop. That makes the light<br />

coming back from a blue screen still 1.5 stop less<br />

on a light meter than that from a green screen.<br />

2. I feel working with blue easier while it seems<br />

more like a natural color to me. What I mean is f.e.<br />

that if I have to set up a light to kill it, a small light<br />

with quarter or half 85 gel on it often will do. There<br />

are more cases that a warm backlight on my<br />

subject is OK for the picture, while a magenta<br />

backlight is not often acceptable.......<br />

I quite often work for medium budget productions,<br />

which makes that the post-production facilities do<br />

not always have all the neatest software, gear,<br />

expertise and/or time to get away with the spills<br />

easily.....<br />

All the time they put in there will be lost elsewhere<br />

in the post work. They often have to work on tight<br />

Page 190


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

schedules and the better the source material I can<br />

deliver them the better the final result will be I<br />

think.<br />

Kind Regards,<br />

Kommer Kleijn<br />

This is where good communication between the<br />

director and the visual effects supervisor is vital. If<br />

your visual effects supervisor is using an Ultimatte<br />

style system, throwing up a "spill correcting"<br />

backlight behind the subject is inappropriate;<br />

Ultimatte and similar tools have built in spill<br />

correction logic, so doing this will make the<br />

composite look wrong.<br />

However, that said, some DPs will gel the subject<br />

key and fill magenta/85, in order to separate the<br />

subject from the background more, and then the<br />

color cast is corrected in the compositing process.<br />

Even Ultimatte is under $2,000 which is nothing for<br />

post houses. Ultimatte removes spill automatically,<br />

Page 191


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

so it actually saves time. If your post production<br />

facility doesn't have an Ultimatte-level tool, they<br />

are creating more work for themselves, and if<br />

you're paying by the hour, that means they're<br />

ripping you off.<br />

Compositing a color screen subject into the<br />

background is a half-hour proposition at the most.<br />

Again, if it takes more than a couple billable hours,<br />

you need to visit your post house and see what<br />

they're doing. If you've shot good footage, don't let<br />

them tell you "Oh yeah, uh, it's gonna require<br />

twenty hours of roto work."<br />

Ben Syverson<br />

What are the feelings out there on the latitude of<br />

exposure on the green/blue screen? I've always<br />

been comfortable with a 1/2 stop plus or minus<br />

density on the screen. Is there a difference between<br />

the blue or green in regards to variation of density.<br />

Jim<br />

Page 192


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

On the Blue/Green issue, I have no opinion. The<br />

are both "bears" to work with (polar or otherwise)<br />

but I'd like to share a little trick I've used with fairly<br />

good success:<br />

With green screen, add some red gel to any<br />

backlight on your foreground subject, it will<br />

neutralize a good bit of the "spill"<br />

Same is true with blue screen, only add some<br />

amber to neutralize the cyan.<br />

Joe "I'd rather hang the actor over the cliff" Di<br />

Gennaro<br />

Did I say red? I didn't mean red if I said it<br />

I meant magenta<br />

OK, OK don't blast me with ridicule!<br />

Joe "Mistakes make me see red" Di Gennaro<br />

Page 193


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I know that this is purely anecdotal, but I<br />

remember reading about the CG dept. working on<br />

"Broken Arrow" saying that they had to use green<br />

screen because John Travolta's eyes keyed out in<br />

the blue screen composites.<br />

Now, I'm by no means saying that Mr. Travolta is to<br />

blame for all this :) but I know that there are often<br />

MANY mitigating factors. The one thing I do know<br />

about green screen is that it takes more than one<br />

coat of paint to get the saturation right, whereas<br />

blue can usually get it in one. One commercial I<br />

did we had to postpone everything while the 3rd<br />

coat was drying because the stage owner had to<br />

redo it in the middle of the night after my prelight<br />

revealed inconsistencies in the saturation. The<br />

production was pissed because it cost them 3x as<br />

much in paint expenses- on both ends (getting it<br />

green, and then back to white). I've suggested<br />

blue screen ever since.<br />

Thom Harp<br />

Page 194


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Again, if you're using Ultimatte, Primatte or a<br />

similar tool, this is inappropriate. Spill<br />

compensating backlight should be used only with<br />

the most basic compositing systems. It takes quite<br />

a bit of time to remove that amber or magenta<br />

edge in post.<br />

Hope this sheds some backlight on the subject...<br />

Ben Syverson<br />

OK OK<br />

I won't ever do it again!<br />

This list is great for both learning and un-learning<br />

things.<br />

Thanks!<br />

Joe "I Stand Color-Corrected" Di Gennaro<br />

Page 195


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I just have to jump in on this thread .I think that<br />

either blue or green done well in perfect<br />

circumstances is going to work for the post people<br />

BUT. on set you just don’t get the time or<br />

resources to do things perfectly every time.<br />

I find green screen easier to light because as stated<br />

by a previous post it takes less light (read less<br />

money)to get the same luminance. This is a major<br />

consideration when you are lighting for high speed<br />

or massive depth in real speeds(producers get very<br />

ugly sometimes).<br />

Next. Ever try underexposing your green screens?<br />

This is the shot .Girl in skintight BLACK LATEX!!!!!<br />

on green screen, shot high speed(read Lots-o-Lite)<br />

to be composited onto a torch lit scene(read Very<br />

Dark)No chance of faking little magenta backlights<br />

or whatever tricks you can think of. OK get a<br />

written note from you Vis FX supervisor witnessed<br />

by at least ten people and signed by everyone in<br />

the post dept and underexpose your green screen<br />

by two stops. Spill disappears and the key locks in<br />

with the dark BG like magic.<br />

Page 196


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Don't tell anyone Its a secret.<br />

Regards<br />

Ross Emery<br />

Note. Blue screens underexposed go black.<br />

>Next. Ever try underexposing your green screens?<br />

I've consistently underexposed my green screen by<br />

2-3 stops and this thread has been discussed at<br />

length regarding the way one determines the<br />

underexposure. In other words is the spot meter<br />

giving you an accurate reading with such a limited<br />

spectrum of color. But regardless it works with my<br />

Minolta.<br />

>Note. Blue screens underexposed go black.<br />

Not in my experience. I've found the blue to be<br />

able to be underexposed by 2 stops as well.<br />

Page 197


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

However, this is on 35mm, on 16 I will tend to be<br />

more conservative. My question though is how<br />

much latitude does one have within a lit blue/green<br />

screen? I've usually been plus or minus 1/2 stop<br />

with no problem but again on 16mm I would be<br />

more conservative. What are the limits in 35mm in<br />

pulling an acceptable key? i.e.: if my exposure is<br />

f5.6 and I put the green screen at a 2.8 (2 under)<br />

do I still have the latitude for a part of the green to<br />

be 2-1/2 (f2.4) stops under and 1-1/2 (f3.4) stop<br />

under for a successful key??<br />

Or if I'm at f5.6 exposure and I underexpose the<br />

green screen one stop at f4 do I have the latitude<br />

to again within the screen be 1/2 over and under.<br />

What are the limits? And at what exposure or under<br />

exposure of the screen?<br />

Is there a difference?<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Page 198


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Yes Walter that's what I'm getting at, what is that<br />

acceptable threshold?<br />

Does it vary from machine to machine or how it's<br />

set up?<br />

Sometimes we must make compromises on the<br />

evenness of the screen (i.e.: around 3 dimensional<br />

objects) and I would be interested to see at what<br />

limits we have and by what criteria can we base<br />

those limits.<br />

There are times when the screen looks good by the<br />

meter but the camera gets a reflective angle off the<br />

screen which makes a key more difficult which<br />

makes it important to judge the screens luminance<br />

at the camera angle<br />

.<br />

>... I think it important to understand that in the<br />

end you should be<br />

lighting the color for what it is and not just to<br />

illuminate the background with a consideration of<br />

the foreground element first.<<br />

Absolutely true but if you can get a great key off 2<br />

stops under and it helps eliminate spill and<br />

reflections on your subject then that's the choice to<br />

be made. But then how much latitude within the<br />

screen is there before reaching the unkeyable<br />

Page 199


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

threshold on the underexposed side? I've seen<br />

discrepancies with this and was wondering what<br />

variables can cause them in post.<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

><br />

I'm curious. When the lights were dimmed to 33%,<br />

was the change in color temperature (lighting<br />

shifting warmer/less blue light on the blue screen)<br />

Page 200


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

a factor in the key? I'm wondering about the key's<br />

tolerance of a shift in color temperature of the light<br />

source on the screen. How warm can you go?<br />

How blue could you go? Would you have noticed<br />

this difference on a vector scope? And what's more<br />

valuable for reading the screen on a shoot like<br />

that, a waveform monitor or a vector scope?<br />

Tim Glass<br />

>What are the limits? And at what exposure or<br />

under exposure of the<br />

screen?<br />

Again, I think our fine colleagues in post will say<br />

that they can get it within a stop range (+ or - a<br />

1/2 stop), but the real question is do you want<br />

them also to be able to add shadows to the b.g.<br />

that are cast on stage? If so, I believe that you<br />

have to be more consistent with the exposure for<br />

the green/blue you want keyed out in order to<br />

make it easier for them to pull your shadow<br />

cleanly.<br />

Page 201


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Anyone else w/experience on shadows you WANT<br />

to use doing this kind of work?<br />

Thom Harp<br />

When the lights were dimmed to 33%, was the<br />

change in color<br />

temperature (lighting shifting warmer/less blue<br />

light on the blue screen) a factor in the key? <<br />

Be careful not to draw too many generalizations<br />

from specific cases without specific parameter<br />

information. For instance, if you have a<br />

hypothetical monochromatic blue or green screen<br />

(reflects nothing back that is not the wavelength<br />

you want) then dimming lights (shifting them<br />

towards red) will not affect chroma...it's just that as<br />

you dim them you will lose proportionately more<br />

green than longer wavelengths so your exposure<br />

curve would drop faster than a light meter would<br />

imply.<br />

If you have a screen which is not monochromatic<br />

(say, a white wall) and you light it with lights<br />

Page 202


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

filtered through a "perfect" green filter, the same<br />

could be said to happen, since all the light hitting<br />

our theoretical white wall would be filtered to pass<br />

only the "green" that we are selecting.<br />

Most real world situations fall between these two<br />

extremes. The degree of reflectance of green (and<br />

absorption of "non-green") of the screen will vastly<br />

affect its touchiness about light source purity.<br />

Conversely, if you are using narrow band<br />

illuminating sources for your screen, color<br />

variations on the screen and even big chunks of<br />

dirt become much less of a problem. With painted<br />

cycs, for instance, a big consideration is the<br />

specular kick off of the front surface of the paint.<br />

This sheen can be a problem if you are using<br />

unfiltered or wide-band sources, but is generally<br />

not a problem if you are using narrow-band<br />

sources. By the way, you can use a polarizing filter<br />

to knock down the sheen in some situations if it is<br />

a bigger problem than the stop loss would be.<br />

Now I'll shut up and let Walter answer :-)<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

Page 203


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I prefer green screen for compositing outdoor<br />

scenes because it allows me to fill with bluish<br />

skylight to help sell the illusion of a sunny day.<br />

Otherwise I would have to gel the "sunlight" extra<br />

warm and rely on post-production to cool the<br />

scene down to the proper color balance after they<br />

get the matte.<br />

Bruce Douglas<br />

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

A visit to the PRIMATTE site, where they show a<br />

chromakey system based on their patented<br />

Polyhedron Slicing algorithm, is worth the detour.<br />

http://www.photron.com/WHITEPAPER/kanprie.ph<br />

p3<br />

(A unique method of calculating key values,<br />

Clean and precise blue-spill removal functions,<br />

etc.)<br />

Page 204


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

--jp<br />

Yes, Primatte is a very intriguing system,<br />

although I'm not sure I would use it for everyday<br />

blue and green screen composites; all of that<br />

complex math slows down rendering times. But if<br />

you have really awful color screen footage to deal<br />

with, it's a good choice, because it can handle<br />

almost anything.<br />

Every package has its strengths and weaknesses.<br />

Ultimatte has special blue screen procedures, since<br />

it was developed when blue screens were<br />

predominant, so it's really the best tool for that. My<br />

package, The Matte Pack, works best with green<br />

screens. (The math is the same for blue & green,<br />

but the spill remover works best with green.)<br />

On the note of condensing all of one's thoughts<br />

into one email to keep traffic down, here are my<br />

notes on color temp and exposure. Ultimatte,<br />

Primatte, and The Matte Pack can all handle<br />

significant shifts in color temperature with little<br />

Page 205


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

effect on the matte. There is an effect on the spill<br />

suppression, but you can use that to your<br />

advantage. For example, if you want spill areas to<br />

resolve to grey, you need the background as close<br />

as possible to 100% b/g, 0% b/g, 0% r. If you want<br />

spill areas to resolve brown, shoot with a slightly<br />

yellowish/reddish greenscreen. In terms of<br />

exposure, you want the closest to 100% green or<br />

100% blue. That will give the lowest grain matte.<br />

Green screens are easier for people to get their<br />

minds around, in my experience. When you say<br />

"green" to most people, they think of a VERY<br />

specific color, which is essentially pure green. And<br />

if you show them color that's too blue or too<br />

yellow, they'll say "no, that's not green." But pure<br />

blue doesn't look "pure" to most people - it looks<br />

too dark. Actually, people have a very vague<br />

conception of blue - especially producers. ;) So if<br />

they see something that's practically sky blue,<br />

they'll say "hey, that's blue! Shoot against that!"<br />

-Ben Syverson<br />

Page 206


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Page 207


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Borescopes, Probes & Frazier<br />

We Started our conversation with a discussion<br />

about Probes:-<br />

I just used the new Innovision lenses and found<br />

them to be the sharpest of the lot (in terms of<br />

borescope lenses) but the flare problem must be<br />

carefully addressed usually with tape on the lens.<br />

James Sofranko<br />

Black wrap taped to the lens is the solution.<br />

Did someone compare the Innovision probe II with<br />

OpTex or Frazier.<br />

Mali Benny<br />

I've never had the chance to compare the OpTex &<br />

the Innovision side by side but I've used both quite<br />

a lot and I'm fairly sure that the Innovision is<br />

sharper at all apertures.<br />

Page 208


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Which is a pity as it's much easier for me to get<br />

the OpTex :-(<br />

Geoff<br />

I've worked with Innovision lenses as well...they are<br />

great....keep in mind about your lighting scheme<br />

though...once you get that lens right up to the<br />

subject you will find some fun challenges as to<br />

where to put your light source as to a) not flare the<br />

lens and b) not cause shadows from the lens since<br />

it will be so damn close to the subject!!<br />

Good luck and have fun!<br />

Luc G. Nicknair<br />

I've used the original Frazier before Panaflex got it<br />

and found that it performs a much different<br />

function than the Innovision-type lenses. The<br />

Frazier is great for depth perception and scale<br />

realization in special shots of that type. But it must<br />

Page 209


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

be lit to an f16 for this to be accomplished. But as I<br />

recall it didn't have any more depth in macro land.<br />

The Innovision 2 is a f5.6 and seems to work much<br />

better for getting close to objects without the<br />

obtrusion of the camera. I believe that the tube is<br />

narrower. It has a great depth of field and seems to<br />

work as well or better in macro than the Frazier.<br />

It would be helpful if the people making these<br />

lenses could produce a depth of field chart for their<br />

products.<br />

James Sofranko<br />

About 2 months ago I used the Probe II with an SR<br />

III to simulate a POV shot through a keyhole. (Prop<br />

dept. built an oversized lock cylinder.) The Probe II<br />

worked GREAT. Interchangeable lenses gave us<br />

maximum flexibility. We dollied into the key<br />

cylinder and saw the actor on the other side. Very<br />

nice shot.<br />

Chris Taylor<br />

Page 210


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

We then went into more detail about the Frazier:-<br />

Hi, anyone used this - I had a look at it at<br />

Panavision Woodland Hills recently, and although<br />

the maximum aperture is slow (7.1) it looks like an<br />

interesting piece of kit. Basically a periscope type<br />

lens with the business end orientable in two axes,<br />

built in rotation(manual or motorised) of the<br />

image, and supplied with various perspective<br />

control/shift lenses from different manufacturers<br />

(Nikon, Tokina etc).<br />

Any observations?<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

The optical and mechanical concept of this lens<br />

system was previously conceived and fabricated by<br />

Bob Netmann, now with Mathews Electronics. He<br />

had nothing to do with the manufacture of the<br />

Fraizer System. He was a partner in Continental<br />

Camera at the time. He now works with Mathews.<br />

He in an inventor that created the Continental<br />

Camera helicopter mount, the Mathews<br />

CamRemote, and both the Astrovision and<br />

Page 211


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Vectorvision aerial camera systems that shoot from<br />

Lear Jets.<br />

Bob's version is called the "Pitching Lens System" It<br />

predates the Fraiser Lens System by more than 15<br />

years. It has a relay lens tube, and an articulating<br />

front lens mount that can tilt through 180 degrees.<br />

The front lens mount can accept a wide variety of<br />

both still lenses and motion picture lenses. The<br />

image can be rolled through 360 degrees.<br />

They have been available for rent, first through<br />

Continental Camera, and now through Mathews<br />

Electronics, 2021 Lincoln Street, Burbank, CA<br />

91504, (818) 843-0969.<br />

I'm sure Bob has been watching all this and<br />

wonders, "What's all the fuss?"<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

-------------------------------------------<br />

-------------------------------------------<br />

---<br />

I'm using one at the moment on an Intel<br />

commercial. For the first time we actually did<br />

notice an increase in depth of field, besides that<br />

gained by the fact that the taking lens is effectively<br />

Page 212


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

widened - 17mm = 12mm. I was checking out the<br />

system with the 50mm and realized that the door<br />

way I was looking through was very sharp, along<br />

with the background, which was very close to<br />

infinity on the focus scale. And that was wide open<br />

- 7.1 . It does seem to defy physics. Someone<br />

pointed out that Oxford Scientific has had such a<br />

set up for quite awhile, although Panavision has<br />

some patents pending apparently.<br />

We're using it to get a dogs POV, plus some<br />

interesting and quick funny/odd angles.<br />

Mako<br />

When something is repackaged and heralded as the<br />

latest thing with a fanfare of trumpets, people who<br />

don't know of it's previous incarnations sit up.<br />

Although the Continental system has been here for<br />

some time, it has tended to remain in the special<br />

fx/commercials domain, and also comes under the<br />

headings of expensive and time consuming. The PV<br />

system comes out in one box and is a little more<br />

user friendly. I don't know about the economics.<br />

Page 213


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Still anything that expands the repertoire, or<br />

widens access to a particular technique isn't a bad<br />

thing; apart of course for the fact that everyone<br />

tends to jump on the bandwagon at once, as per<br />

some previous conversations here and elsewhere!<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

The Frazier lens is suppose to have the added<br />

benefit of extended depth of field.<br />

On my Intel commercial last week we "suddenly"<br />

saw this extended depth. Seems to defy physics.<br />

OTH, someone mentioned that that part of the<br />

Frazier lens system might have been already in use<br />

in some form my Oxford Scientific?<br />

I wish Panavision would step up and comment on<br />

this ...<br />

Mako<br />

I wonder about the supposedly magical depth of<br />

field on the Frazier lens system. I've worked with it<br />

Page 214


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

on a wide-angle-comedy commercial (kind of a<br />

speciality of mine) and while it was impressive, as<br />

we used it it seemed pretty much what I'd expect<br />

from a 14 or 16mm lens at T8--a territory I am<br />

very familiar with. Perhaps what is different about<br />

it is being able to put the lens right up close to<br />

things so easily--so you see very close foreground<br />

objects which are pretty sharp. I see the same<br />

thing when I rack my CF 16 Zeiss up way<br />

close....sorry if you're tired of hearing about that.<br />

Also, the system requirement of T7 may cause<br />

people to light to a deeper stop than they're used<br />

to on interiors, so they see more d.o.f. than they<br />

expect.<br />

On the job where I used it I quizzed a Panavision<br />

rep and he said that there was nothing magical<br />

going on with the depth of field, for what that's<br />

worth. Their literature does seem to promise some<br />

special quality, but they also say it really starts to<br />

happen at T11 or 16. Well, OBVIOUSLY things are<br />

going to be pretty sharp there.<br />

I think the great thing about the Frazier is the<br />

malleability of the lens position: you can get it<br />

right in there, far away from the camera body, then<br />

rotate the image however you want to level or<br />

Dutch it. It is WAY head and shoulders above any<br />

Page 215


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

other periscope or wand system with these<br />

features...and yes, this is an advantage over my CF<br />

Zeisses, too...dammit. OTOH for executing moves<br />

it is not so good. With that long tube you are WAY<br />

off the camera's nodal point. When you tilt, you<br />

have a mini 'crane move' --but it's as if the crane<br />

operator does the move and the camera operator's<br />

tilt is locked. Same thing applies to panning...there<br />

is no backpanning, so you can approach and go<br />

past things, but can't approach and go past them<br />

and hold them in frame. For some moves this will<br />

be fine, for others not. In theory you could still do<br />

a boom or dolly move, then pan or tilt on your<br />

head to compensate, but being that far off the<br />

nodal point I think the whiplash would kill you.<br />

The Kenworthy snorkel does not have this<br />

limitation...but we are talking probably an order of<br />

magnitude in terms of budget, which is itself kind<br />

of a conversation-stopper.<br />

One other small caveat about the Frazier system is<br />

that while the adapted Nikon, Canon, and Tokina (!)<br />

lenses seem optically okay (for TV anyway), they<br />

are not entirely innocent of flare and some have<br />

pretty big front elements.<br />

So while you've got your lens hidden in some neat<br />

spot right up close IN the scene, better allow room<br />

Page 216


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

for your grip brothers to cut the light off that lens<br />

front or you may be living with a flare or a milkedout<br />

shot.<br />

Alan Thatcher<br />

I felt the same way about the Frazier on the first<br />

couple of shoots that I used it on (as the AC). But<br />

on this last job I discovered while prepping that<br />

when I put the 50mm on and looked through a<br />

doorway a few feet away, everything was pretty<br />

darn sharp from the doorway all the way across the<br />

prep room a Panavision Hollywood. Wide open -<br />

yah I know - T7. It actually seemed more<br />

impressive with the longer lenses then the wide<br />

ones?<br />

If the depth of field thing is true, Panavision needs<br />

to do a crash course with its employees. It does<br />

seem most of them are tired of the depth of field<br />

questions and don't believe it themselves. <br />

Mako<br />

Page 217


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Here are some answers and comments from the<br />

inventor of the Frazier<br />

lens.<br />

1. First and foremost I refer to the comment from<br />

Bill Bennett. Let's put to rest once and for all any<br />

false claim that THIS lens system was 'conceived<br />

and fabricated' by anyone else. Its design is<br />

nothing like the design of the Netman (Kenworth<br />

snorkel) .<br />

The Frazier system's built in motorised image<br />

rotator is not offered in the Netman system. The<br />

two-axis swivel at the front of the lens is not<br />

offered in the Netman system. The Frazier system<br />

does not require a specialist operator and 300lb of<br />

rig to operate it. It's a fraction of the cost and very<br />

cameraman friendly. The lens can be swivelled in<br />

mere seconds ready for a different shot ; you can<br />

literally go from a horizontal to a vertical shot in<br />

less than a minute, and an underslung shot to an<br />

overhead shot in mere seconds. It is not a snorkel<br />

as such, but quickly converts to a snorkel if so<br />

desired, by swivelling the tip.<br />

Page 218


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

2. Regarding the extended depth of focus,<br />

Mako's comment on this page ("seems to defy<br />

physics") reflects what was told to me by a<br />

physicist when I was doing my first research on<br />

the Frazier lens fifteen years ago. He said that the<br />

extended depth of field I sought was an "optical<br />

impossibility " . Not being an optics specialist, I<br />

went ahead and apparently achieved the<br />

impossible. In science there are only temporary<br />

answers. We devise 'laws of nature' to comfort our<br />

egos, and they need constant revision.<br />

3. Still on depth of field, as with any lens if you<br />

want depth you must stop down. But this lens<br />

achieves greater depth at any given stop.<br />

Let us assume that, using the widest possible<br />

lens, the desired magnification of the foreground<br />

object has been established, and, using a suitable<br />

f-stop, you have achieved sharp focus from that<br />

object to infinity. But - you are unhappy with the<br />

wide angle perspective. By maintaining the closeup<br />

object magnification with any other of the<br />

lenses in the kit, you will achieve exactly the same<br />

sharp focus<br />

from close-up to infinity.<br />

Page 219


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

4. As a bonus, in this system the distortion<br />

usually associated with wide angle lenses is almost<br />

zero, thus allowing new and unusual close-up<br />

perspectives.<br />

And it takes over where other lenses leave off, as it<br />

now includes that lost area from minimum focus to<br />

the front element of the lens.<br />

5. By the way, motorised versions are on the<br />

drawing board, with both swivel axes being linked<br />

to the image rotator to maintain a level horizon.<br />

6. My demonstration video is available from<br />

Panavision, but I shall be happy to answer any<br />

specific queries on this page.<br />

Page 220<br />

Jim Frazier<br />

Sydney, Australia


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Bounce Lighting<br />

Well, I'd like to start a new thread if I may:<br />

What is the most creative [i.e.: strangest?] material<br />

you have ever used to<br />

bounce like off?<br />

I heard that Bob Richardson, ASC used Luane [you<br />

know...the expensive plywood stuff...sorry for my<br />

spelling] which he hit 4K pars into, at least until<br />

the sheets began to smoke and were changed out!<br />

Any other odd yet great mediums to bounce into<br />

besides the standard bead-board & foam -core?<br />

Jeff<br />

-------------------------------------------<br />

-------------------------------------------<br />

---<br />

Some of the nicest, cheapest material I've used is a<br />

construction material used as building insulation.<br />

Specifically, this material is a dark yellow foam<br />

board, one inch thick, that has been covered on<br />

both sides with a semi mirrored mylar, of sorts.<br />

Page 221


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

4x8 sheets were $6.75. These hit with either coat<br />

of matte spray or a "dusting" with cheap white<br />

paint to cut back on the specularity of bounced<br />

sunlight and you have large quantities of fill for<br />

tiny amounts of money.<br />

I used these to light a high frame rate (10 fps) still<br />

shoot of a rollerblader taking runs at the camera<br />

position. I bounced an 8 foot fill from a low<br />

positioned sun, over a 70 foot run. Materials cost<br />

totalled ~ $150.<br />

They are lighter weight than 1 inch foamcore, but<br />

are not as stiff.<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

Clear Day Software<br />

I've told this anecdote before on CML, but I saw<br />

John Alcott bounce two brutes into the black side<br />

of a show card for a CU of Paul Newman on Fort<br />

Apache the Bronx.<br />

Page 222


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Lowell Peterson<br />

Cellotex. 1" rigid insulating construction boar d,<br />

"found" at a construction site. The 1" rigid foam<br />

interior is light, creamy tan in color; it's<br />

sandwiched between two sheets of mylar, one<br />

matte black and the other dull aluminium. Perfect<br />

for a light weight bounce (rig it like foam core) and<br />

you can peel the matte black covering off easily,<br />

leaving a "warm/soft" side and a "efficient silver"<br />

side. Cut a single 4' x 8' sheet in half, you've got<br />

two great 4x4 bounce boards for a total of $13.95.<br />

Great for travel and location work, buy 'em on site<br />

at any major lumber yard or "Home Depot" kinda<br />

chain store; use 'em, toss 'em when you're done.<br />

Jim Furrer<br />

A story passed along to me.<br />

The great Vittorio Storraro was hired for a<br />

commercial being shot on location in Niagara Falls.<br />

Page 223


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The usual fleet of lighting trucks, grip trucks, big<br />

crew, etc. made the trek down to the Falls.<br />

As the first shot was being lined up with the<br />

director the crew waited anxiously for Vittorio's<br />

directions as to what equipment would be hauled<br />

off the truck to light the shot.<br />

There was a long pause. Storraro, after assessing<br />

the situation (perhaps he stroked his chin here, I<br />

don't know) turns to the crew and with a chopping<br />

motion of his hand indicates where and on what<br />

angle he would like a piece of foamcore placed.<br />

That was it!<br />

Now that's genius!!<br />

Greg Bennett<br />

Several things I have bounced light off of: shiny<br />

linoleum floors (to get that hot morning light<br />

thang), off of reflector boards at night (to soften<br />

the harshness of HMI pars and, one of my tricks,<br />

because I hate the harsh sterility of beadboard, is<br />

I'll kindly as the grips to entice the art department<br />

out of some tan hued paint and paint a 4x8 of<br />

Page 224


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

foamcore and the 'Marble-ize' or speckle it with a<br />

darker color creating a kind of 'granite texture.<br />

That gives the effect of bouncing off of sand.<br />

Of course there's the obvious: bouncing off of<br />

ceilings, walls, even dark maple wood panelling<br />

(don't set it afire though!) and 'microwaving' with<br />

mirrors. One pet project of mine has been to find<br />

odd shapes of glass, cove window radiuses, TV set<br />

glass fronts and, for my last feature I found a<br />

particular flat or shallow curved piece of rear<br />

window glass with a bronze tinting from a Honda<br />

van which I silvered and used when I wanted<br />

extremely hard shadows. The idea came from<br />

noticing light reflected off of windshield in the<br />

parking lot that gave a surprising venetian blinds<br />

effect in office buildings. Much fun. Who else???<br />

--Eric Edwards<br />

I can't believe someone didn't beat me to the<br />

punch here -- a favorite of mine from the lowbudget<br />

days was the need for a large soft ambient<br />

glow for night exteriors...<br />

Page 225


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Love the side of the grip truck...<br />

Nice and reflective white...<br />

Very tasty in those under-the-gun productions<br />

when a 20-by is as mythical as a Unicorn...<br />

Was very sad when I did a low budget feature with<br />

a green grip/electric truck...<br />

What the hell was supposed to use for a bounce<br />

then? Also, in a desperate measure while shooting<br />

on board a yacht at sea and needing a bit of fill<br />

from the sun, the DP threw me a roll of 216 and<br />

said -- "Here -- unroll this and hold it up!" Woof!<br />

Instant 4x4 bounce...<br />

Of course that's the same DP who also bounced a<br />

practical off of a red poster tube for a little warmth<br />

in a close-up and, once off of a toilet bowl for a<br />

little kicker... (and you know, it was actually a cool<br />

source...)<br />

Jay "I've got a million of 'em" Holben<br />

I heard that Conrad Hall likes to bounce 4k pars off<br />

a door handle!<br />

Page 226


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Well, maybe not 4Ks but...well, maybe the story is<br />

apocryphal but next time there's a door handle in a<br />

scene I'm lighting I intend to try it.<br />

The story did set me thinking and is a good one to<br />

remember when our minds stop thinking creatively<br />

and we just call out for a polly out of habit ;


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

one day he noticed that the next building over was<br />

white washed (I guess the building was pretty<br />

close). He calculated when the sun would be<br />

positioned to make the white building a huge<br />

bounce card for the office scene he had in the<br />

adjacent bldg.<br />

Jim.R.Allen.III<br />

Several years ago we were filming a night shot of a<br />

house set in a snow scene in upper Wisconsin.<br />

Since we had to bring everything from South<br />

Carolina, we were using a semi trailer for a grip<br />

truck. Fortunately, it was white, and I bounced a<br />

tungsten-lamped 9 light off the side for ambient<br />

fill, much as Jay has done.<br />

But the handiest thing we've come up with lately<br />

was for a shot inside a small junior high gym with<br />

a 13' ceiling. The scene was a science fair and the<br />

displays were virtually wall to wall. The director<br />

wanted a high angle long shot from one corner<br />

that covered most of the gym. Trying to push soft<br />

light across the width of the gym to supplement<br />

Page 228


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the fluoros overhead and give a little soft cross<br />

light to relieve the flatness was a problem. We<br />

came up with a couple of 1/2" thick 4x8 panels of<br />

Gatorfoam covered with Roscoflex S (soft) with HMI<br />

1200s bounced off of them. This gave us some<br />

soft punch you can't get from straight foam board.<br />

Since Gatorfoam has a surface made of thin wood<br />

material rather than paper, it is more rigid than<br />

regular board, but being only 1/2" thick it is still<br />

lightweight.<br />

To mount them we bolted a large floor flange<br />

exactly in the center of each and screwed 24" long<br />

2" PVC pipes to the flanges. We can clamp the<br />

pipe in a Lowel Grip mounted on a Matthews<br />

Combo stand, which gives us complete swivel<br />

adjustment of the panel. We also used them for<br />

soft backlight on closer shots. For softer effects,<br />

the entire panel can be reversed (flange/pipe/Grip<br />

on the front side) and the normal white surface<br />

can be used. For storage, the PVC mounts can be<br />

unscrewed from the flanges. When these boards<br />

finally break, we can buy new ones, drill 4 holes in<br />

the centers and transfer the flanges to the new<br />

boards.<br />

Page 229


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

We've used them successfully on exteriors, as well,<br />

but they need to be tied off at the corners so they<br />

don't sail away in the breeze!<br />

For a scene tomorrow from the back of a classroom<br />

with acoustical tile ceiling, we are going to rig a<br />

panel of either Roscoflex S or shiny posterboard<br />

material to the ceiling to bounce a soft beam over<br />

the desks to augment the lighting in the front of<br />

the room. The soft side of one of the 4x8<br />

Gatorfoam boards will fill the foreground.<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

I love taking household mirrors (2' x 4', etc.) and<br />

covering them with 2" clear packing tape (both<br />

sides) a few times. Take the mirror and drop it flat<br />

onto concrete and take a hammer to it. Break it up<br />

artistically :)<br />

Mount to a piece of wood with a baby pin on it.<br />

Use handy clamps to grab it as you torque it into<br />

weird shapes. put wedges behind it to press it out.<br />

I try to use a HMI par with this as it needs a big<br />

gun.<br />

Page 230


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

It gives an incredible look for a key light. Put<br />

branches in front for a great dappled sun light look<br />

with HMI’s.<br />

Styrofoam ceiling tiles(2'x2') make great small<br />

bounces too.<br />

Not really a bounce, but taking 4x4 frames and<br />

covering with industrial grade saran wrap (all<br />

crunched up in layers) and drizzling clear oil on<br />

them is a cool effect, especially if 2 or 3 are<br />

stacked up in front of the key.<br />

Kind of messy, but boy is it pretty!!!!<br />

Page 231<br />

Kurt Rauf<br />

Movie screens. Bought a bunch from a school<br />

system surplus auction. Cheap.<br />

Some on stands, some were hanging style and I<br />

just took them out of the cans and roll them up by<br />

hand.<br />

Once I had to match backlight ("moonlight")<br />

coming through a window on a night interior. Had<br />

already shot with an 1200 par HMI out in the yard.<br />

Then the rains came. Stood the screen in the


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

downpour in the yard, put the HMI safely under a<br />

patio overhang, and got the shot.<br />

Mark Schlicher<br />

Sunporch Entertainment<br />

I kinda stole that same idea for a short that I gaffed<br />

in the parking garage at Sony. The director wanted<br />

the open areas between the ceiling and the lower<br />

walls to blow out white. Knowing that we didn't<br />

have anywhere near the crew or budget to paper<br />

the openings and light them, I helped to schedule<br />

those shots so that the adjacent building would<br />

reflect the sun and adequately blow out those<br />

areas. We shot 98 at a pretty wide aperture to take<br />

advantage of the natural lite within the confines of<br />

the garage and the openings blew out<br />

wonderfully... God -- he (or she) is the ultimate<br />

gaffer after all... My philosophy has always been to<br />

not fight him (her) when I could avoid it... :)<br />

Jay Holben<br />

Page 232


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I like using these white table-cloth liners when I'm<br />

doing small shoots with only my personal kit. They<br />

cost about $4 , they weigh nothing, tape up to any<br />

wall, they're small and seem to have a decent<br />

quality for bouncing light. I carry two in my ditty<br />

bag, which gives me two 9foot X 5foot bounce.<br />

D.P.<br />

Nobody's mentioned it and I forgot to: What about<br />

those nifty weather balloons for bounce? They're<br />

great for when you've rented the baroque palace<br />

and they won't let you put a pole cat anywhere. I<br />

read somewhere recently that a DP double tethered<br />

one outside, hit it with a 2K xenon and it played as<br />

the moon in a shot.<br />

I lit a huge old courtroom (same one they used for<br />

JFK) with Light by Heaven.<br />

Page 233


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

On the tech scout I noticed the court was in an "ell"<br />

of the building and the whitewashed walls from the<br />

main structure formed a massive bounce on the fill<br />

side thru three 30x15 foot windows with louvered<br />

blinds. it was a double key effect which was very<br />

pretty.<br />

but on the tech scout I failed to see how long the<br />

effect would last and found that it didn’t last long.<br />

to maintain the corner I'd painted myself into – I<br />

just used 4x4 foamcore. also saved myself by<br />

keeping the blinds tightened down during the wide<br />

shots so that later I could open them up as the<br />

hand of the infinite (sun) passed from us. I just<br />

saw the footage and it came in nice.<br />

good matches.<br />

Caleb<br />

How about the old bouncing the light into the<br />

water gag? I've bounced a 10K into a pool of<br />

shallow water to reflect into a rear screen from<br />

behind. We even got an interesting ripple FX by<br />

Page 234


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

taping a wooden 'tail' to an oscillating fan and<br />

having that stir the water for constant waves.<br />

Sometimes we've used mirrors on the bottom.<br />

Robby Muller once showed me a product that<br />

Rosco makes {can't find it in the swatch :-( maybe<br />

it was called Lumalite or Lumalux?) that is thin<br />

Styrofoam similar to disposable trays. We glue<br />

mounted it onto some Luann (?sp.) and found it to<br />

be much punchier than foamcore and much more<br />

focusable. I recall it was very fragile but worked<br />

great especially on overcast days.<br />

And of course, Kraft paper. The light goldenbrown<br />

paper often used on film sets to cover tables<br />

or wrap props. That's an old standby for me. But<br />

the sand trick sounds very appealing. Might have<br />

to give that a try as well as Kurt's oil gag (that does<br />

sound messy and you better hope it works). I have<br />

used the mirror gag but always have difficulty<br />

getting the broken mirror to stay in the 'perfect'<br />

position. Not to mention the luck aspects....<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Page 235


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

One thing I found worked really great on a table<br />

top shoot........a paper towel roll!!!<br />

It was one of those situations where you look at the<br />

scene and realize you just need a little something<br />

else...but your DEDO kit is all out and a 1K is just<br />

way too big, so I grabbed the first thing I could<br />

within by arm's reach: a roll of white paper towels<br />

and place it vertical just outside the frame line<br />

and...WOW! A beautiful white/soft reflection on<br />

whatever it was we were shooting.<br />

Another trick I like [and cheap at that] is to skin a<br />

4x4 open frame with that brown 'craft paper'<br />

[shipping wrapping paper]. it is very 'dull' and has a<br />

nice warmth to it. Just either bounce a 2K into it<br />

directly or slide it into a scene to add a little<br />

colored fill...works pretty nice.<br />

With that same thought, I've had the guys skin<br />

other open frames with different colors of old<br />

seamless I found wadded in the back corners of<br />

some stages...sometimes a little blue or red fill<br />

which originates from a bounce and not a gel<br />

seems to do the trick, and it doesn't even matter if<br />

Page 236


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

there are boot prints or tears on it, actually the<br />

more distressed/torn/wrinkled the better....<br />

just a thought...<br />

Jeff<br />

Jessica needed a similar effect on "that feature". I<br />

put handmirrors into the bottom of a 1x2' tin and<br />

about 3" of water went in. it was a small room and<br />

the director changed his mind occasionally so I<br />

skimmed the 1.2 PAR into the tin from about 4'<br />

away and bounced it up into a hard reflector<br />

another few feet from the tin. had a grip stir the<br />

water slowly with hand to make the ripple and<br />

could place the effect anywhere in the room. the<br />

reflector also softened it up nicely. the trick was to<br />

stir the water delicately.<br />

Love the sand and the oil ideas- Go CML! I know<br />

of a tabletop DP in NYC that drives his lights thru<br />

construction glass- that ripply 3" thick stuff you<br />

see stacked up in malls.<br />

Page 237


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Caleb<br />

I used to always carry a bunch of old CD's with me.<br />

They can be stuck to things, broken up or hung<br />

very easily. Emergency blankets are fantastic as<br />

well. Very compact, easy to shape around objects<br />

or cut to size, cheap and available in gold or silver.<br />

I've also used large quantities of mylar helium<br />

balloons (round and star shaped), but it's hard to<br />

keep the grips from huffing the helium! Hardwood<br />

and brick floors are some of my favorites though...<br />

-Anders Uhl<br />

Ok, We've heard a lot about bouncing off of. Now<br />

how about what to shoot through.<br />

I'll start the ball rolling by biding SARAN WRAP!!!!!<br />

About 4 layers works great if you have nothing else<br />

big enough to go over<br />

that humongous big front element.<br />

Page 238


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Not to speak of not a bit of filter factor.<br />

Steven Poster ASC<br />

Three-sided glass bottle from Pier One, static---or<br />

turn slowly...For color effects, tape gel to it, or<br />

even add water with a little food coloring.<br />

Steve Voeller<br />

Stuff to shoot through . . .<br />

For al designer odds and ends. In a good floral<br />

supply shop, they have gold, silver ornamental do-<br />

dads. Little "fake twigs and branches". Put them<br />

a couple of feet in front of the lens, hit em with a<br />

small light and whala, great out-of-focus shapes<br />

with highlights and color.<br />

Movement adds to it. Great with swing & tilt.<br />

Jim Dollarhide<br />

Page 239


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I bought some of that years ago, when it was called<br />

Rosco Bounce, I believe. Just threw away the last<br />

remnants of it yesterday because it is so fragile I<br />

couldn't tape it to the ceiling without it selfdestructing.<br />

According to their catalog it looks<br />

like they now call it Ultrabounce W, at least the<br />

description seems to resemble it.<br />

It had a beautiful surface, very much like satin<br />

fabric, but I never once found a use for it because<br />

it was so difficult to handle. (Couldn't even wrap<br />

up your leftover blackened chicken fingers in it!)<br />

Gluing it down looks like the answer--wish I'd<br />

been sharp enough to think of it!<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

I used to have an extensive cut glass and bottle kit<br />

that recently got lost on a job My favorites were<br />

Page 240


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

cut glass from a chandelier, bottles of various<br />

dimensions, and a lens from an old leko that acted<br />

like an aspheron but weirder.<br />

Jim S.<br />

Yesterday the art department on the picture I'm<br />

currently shooting were glazing a door. They had<br />

the door flat on a bench and were applying the<br />

glaze, and using a blond to help it dry. As they<br />

applied the oily glaze, the most beautiful<br />

reflections and soft shadows of the painter<br />

appeared on the back wall. This effect was quickly<br />

filed away in the visual memory bank!<br />

Although of course the wet glaze provided the<br />

effect, I expect you could reproduce this with a<br />

non-drying substitute, perhaps cooking oil spread<br />

over a flat surface.<br />

But don't use anything too flammable......and I just<br />

know someone will write in and say that extra<br />

virgin olive oil gives better results than sunflower!<br />

I've seen mylar and the mirror/water bounce.<br />

Page 241


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Wooden floors are nice. I use gold and silver<br />

bounce all the time on this film, gives a harder and<br />

more abstract light than white bounce and is good<br />

for a kick in the eyes. I like 'backlight and bounce'<br />

as an elegant single source solution to some<br />

shots, seems economical.<br />

And now, at last, a use for all those free magazine<br />

CDs! Great idea!<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Page 242


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Colour Blindness<br />

For those who may not know it, color blindness is<br />

considered a sex-linked trait because it is far<br />

more common in men than women (75% vs. 25% of<br />

the individuals who are color blind), and it is<br />

frequently used as an example in Mendelian<br />

genetics for this reason. There are also other, rarer<br />

forms of color blindness besides red/green color<br />

blindness depending on which color receptors are<br />

missing on the retina.<br />

Jessica Gallant<br />

Not sure that it's a question of which receptors are<br />

missing, as this doesn't fit with the failure to<br />

distinguish red and green, or (more rarely) yellow<br />

from blue. Missing red receptors, for example,<br />

would leave reds looking black, unlike greens. I<br />

was taught that colour blindness is a "signal<br />

processing" deficiency: as the R,G,B signals from<br />

Page 243


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the retina are interpreted by the visual cortex as<br />

colour difference signals (R-G, R+G-B, and R+G+B,<br />

in other words red versus green, yellow versus<br />

blue, and total luminance). This accounts for<br />

yellow being perceived as a "primary" colour along<br />

with RGB but unlike magenta or cyan.<br />

Interesting that this theory was only developed in<br />

the 1960s, long after the TV engineers came up<br />

with the (original?) idea for composite signals.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

I oversimplified my last post to keep it simple, but<br />

will go into a longer explanation here.<br />

There are different causes of color blindness, and<br />

all of them have to do with the failure to correctly<br />

register color. The most common form of human<br />

color blindness is caused not from the lack of<br />

certain color receptors, but the lack of pigment in<br />

those color receptors. In animals, or other less<br />

Page 244


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

common forms of human color blindness, these<br />

receptors are actually lacking.<br />

While color receptors (cones) are most sensitive to<br />

one color, they are also less sensitive to other<br />

colors as well. When I look at something red, my<br />

red receptors fire off messages to my brain saying<br />

"red" but my green and blue receptors are also<br />

firing off messages saying "a tiny bit of green" or<br />

"a tiny bit of blue" too. This is what gives humans<br />

our ability to distinguish between so many shades<br />

of colors.<br />

[Also complicating matters somewhat is the<br />

existence of luminance receptors (rods) that allow<br />

us to see in low levels of light - mainly in the blue<br />

spectrum.]<br />

Finally, I made one big mistake in my previous post<br />

about color blindness - it occurs about 8 times<br />

more frequently in men than women.<br />

Jessica Gallant<br />

Page 245


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

1 in 11 males have it and 1 in 300 females have it.<br />

1 in 3 million have complete color blindness. The<br />

worst form to have is rod monochromat (cats see<br />

this way). If you were like that you could not stare<br />

at anything directly A rod monochromat who is<br />

totally color blind will have no foveal perceptions.<br />

They cannot look directly at anything because it<br />

disappears from view. Ever notice that after your<br />

cat stares at you for a while his eyes start to look<br />

away form you. They lose sight of you. They must<br />

look around things and have a shifty gaze.<br />

The most common form of colorles s sight is the<br />

lack of ability to see red/green. How does a blind<br />

person see a green light. They don't but the<br />

standard is to put Red on top of light fixtures and<br />

green on the bottom. BTW dogs are not color blind<br />

as you have been told. It was scientifically proven<br />

that dogs see red and yellows mostly, but cant<br />

perceive green and blue. Too bad many dog toy<br />

manufactures don't know this. Most animals<br />

actually see some form of colors.<br />

As for the male thing, here is something to know.<br />

Color blindness skips generations. If your mother's<br />

Page 246


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

father was color-blind, there is a 50 percent<br />

chance you or your brothers will also be colorblind.<br />

The son's sons won't be color-blind, but if<br />

the son fathers a daughter, there's a 50 percent<br />

chance the son's grandson will be color blind.<br />

Oh all this science is boring me.<br />

Have a great day all.<br />

Walter<br />

I'm not an expert on colorblindness but thought I’d<br />

throw my two cents in from personal experience.<br />

My mother (a rare colorblind female) suffers from<br />

blue/green colorblindness. This does not mean<br />

that blue look like greens, and greens look like<br />

blues. Both greens and blues to her eyes look<br />

varying shades of grey. My understanding is that<br />

this is also the case for red/green colorblindness<br />

and is why stoplights are set up the way they are.<br />

When you have two grey lights in front of you it<br />

helps to know that the one on top means "go".<br />

Perhaps this upholds the theory that colorblind<br />

Page 247


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

people are missing the proper receptors and color<br />

to them becomes nothing more than a grey scale.<br />

Now let's shoot that 18% red card.<br />

Theda<br />

Actually, more recent evidence indicates that cats<br />

do have some color perception, but because it's<br />

been published after I've graduated, I'm not very<br />

familiar with it. Apparently, from what you said,<br />

this applies to dogs too.<br />

Even if cats didn't see in color, it would not effect<br />

their iris's ability to respond to different levels of<br />

light, and they would still make suitable light<br />

meters. Dogs, however, would still make a better<br />

Spot meters.<br />

Jessica Gallant<br />

Page 248


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I believe Yellow, which is a subtractive primary like<br />

Cyan and Magenta, also turns out to be an additive<br />

primary as well; this was not known until lasers<br />

came along and it turned out that there is a very<br />

narrow band of yellow that cannot be reproduced<br />

using the additive primaries Red Green and Blue.<br />

-Sam Wells<br />

Exactly so. This is because the red/green<br />

difference signal encoded by the visual cortex is<br />

for some reason always zero, for all colours.<br />

Imagine RGB component signal going to a monitor.<br />

Cut the red wire. Reds become black, looking very<br />

different from greens. This is NOT how colourblind<br />

people see.<br />

Now imagine shorting the red and green wires<br />

together. Reds and greens will look the same greyish<br />

brown. This is a closer approximation to<br />

colour-blindness. Colour blindness is not a<br />

Page 249


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

missing colour - it's a missing colour-difference. I<br />

wonder if dydimium spectacles would help :-)<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

OK, one bit of colorblindness trivia I can't resist<br />

passing along: Back in WWII, they used to send<br />

colorblind guys along with the normal vision<br />

spotters in the recon planes. Seems that taking<br />

out the color info makes it easier to see thru<br />

various types of camouflage. Colorblindness tests<br />

work like that.<br />

John_Sprung<br />

I know for a while there were experiments<br />

w/wearing one strongly tinted red contact lens<br />

over one eye to improve color perception in the<br />

color blind, but I don't know what the results were.<br />

They didn't expect it to provide full range, normal<br />

color vision, but they were hoping for a better<br />

Page 250


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

ability to differentiate between different similar<br />

shades of color.<br />

Jessica Gallant<br />

Hence the reason why you can have a frame of film<br />

that has nice color, but if the contrast isn't there it<br />

just doesn't look all that good. Are you a person<br />

that lights for color when you look at a frame or do<br />

you light for contrast? It might sound like a silly<br />

question, but I did a survey of some friends a few<br />

years ago asking what they looked for in a frame.<br />

Some talked mostly of color, but others(and these<br />

guys lit better) talk of contrast.<br />

Look at the opposite when Gordon Willis<br />

(Manhattan) worked hand in hand with the<br />

wardrobe department so that everyone and<br />

everything in the frame had a full range of<br />

grayscale. I often have the difficulty of trying to<br />

teach a wardrobe person that a white shirt and a<br />

pink jacket on a women looks nice to the eye(in<br />

vivo), but in terms of contrast, they are the same<br />

thing(and the same as white skin tone) and hence<br />

Page 251


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

tend to make a person look rather flat. Who gets<br />

the blame? Me, I mustn't have lit the shot correctly.<br />

A few years ago I gave a course to some wardrobe<br />

people on the subject of color vs. contrast in<br />

making a frame look good. Although they were all<br />

fascinated by my demonstration, they all wen t<br />

back to dressing people for how they looked in<br />

person not how they looked on the screen. Oh well.<br />

Walter<br />

Hmmm .... I never thought of it that way. To me,<br />

composition is the main thing, lighting is a<br />

powerful tool in creating it. It's a way to make line<br />

and mass -- so I suppose that's primarily contrast.<br />

Thanks for leading me to an interesting thought<br />

John_Sprung.<br />

Page 252


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Thank you too. You made me realize that I take the<br />

composition part for granted. But I don't light for<br />

composition. I frame for composition, I light for<br />

contrast. The color part is turned off in my brain<br />

when I look at a frame. I have conditioned myself<br />

to see the color but see beyond it to the tones of<br />

the frame. Although I am currently shooting a<br />

Biography for A&E and in this case it is mostly<br />

talking head. There I light initially for contrast but<br />

then look to create contrasting color between the<br />

person and the background. Kinda boring having a<br />

light skinned fella in front of a warm tone wall,<br />

with a warm tone light with a warm tone practical<br />

in the shot.<br />

Walter<br />

I bounced back and forth as a gaffer from 16mm to<br />

35 to IMAX to 1" C format video, and I had the<br />

pleasure of learning a lot fr om an "old time" video<br />

lighting director who ALWAYS lit to a black and<br />

white monitor...as he put it, if it looks good in<br />

B&W, it will probably fly in color...the reverse is not<br />

Page 253


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

at all true. Since the vast majority of my<br />

experience has been in lighting, I tend to think in<br />

terms of lighting first and coverage second, and in<br />

terms of lighting, I think that I look at contrast<br />

before chroma, but it is hard to separate out the<br />

two.<br />

Mark<br />

Page 254


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Chinese Lanterns<br />

Regarding Chinese lanterns:<br />

I occasionally use Chinese lanterns and have always<br />

felt that they were a little awkward because of the<br />

way that they have to hang straight down so that<br />

the bulb doesn't swing and touch the paper.<br />

Well, every time I see a photo of Phillipe Rousselot<br />

using his Chinese lanterns (you can see one in the<br />

Panavision catalog), I've noticed that the top of the<br />

lantern has a solid plastic cover with a plastic rod<br />

sticking out of it. The power cord runs through this<br />

hollow rod and keeps the bulb at the end of it<br />

rigid. This allows him to hold the lanterns at an<br />

angle or even just lay them on the floor.<br />

Where does he get these fixtures? I'm not even sure<br />

how to make one, since lanterns have this wire<br />

frame to hold them in shape, and the wire hooks at<br />

the top hole - so making a cover plate with a rod<br />

for the bulb doesn't seem possible unless the<br />

lanterns are rigid without needing the wire. Since<br />

Rousselot works often in England (the photos<br />

shooting this rig are from "Interview with a<br />

Vampire" and "Mary Reilly"), I was wondering if you<br />

Page 255


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

(Geoff) knew about his lanterns, or had ever talked<br />

with his gaffer.<br />

(BTW, I know about the new Chimera Chinese<br />

lanterns, but they seem too expensive.)<br />

David Mullen<br />

I can't say I'm a great fan of Chinese lanterns. I<br />

think the same quality of light can be achieved with<br />

better control a variety of different ways.<br />

However, as a gaffer I have made many speciality<br />

lights per a D.P.s request, or often when I find that<br />

nothing commercially available will do just what I<br />

need. I'd guess Phillipe Rousselot's gaffer made<br />

him a set of Chinese lanterns that work the way he<br />

wants them to.<br />

That's how Kino-Flo got started, and DecaSource,<br />

and Xenotech and so on.<br />

Chimera makes a variety of Chinese lanterns now<br />

that are pretty well thought out and should stand<br />

the rigors of production, but they aren't cheap. You<br />

might check them out.<br />

Otherwise, go to the garage/shop and take baby<br />

nail-on plate (pigeon) and drywall screw it with 1<br />

inch screws to a piece of 1 inch thick wood the size<br />

Page 256


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

of the nail on plate's base, but leave about a<br />

quarter inch gap. Screw a porcelain socket to the<br />

other side and wire it using a gauge appropriate to<br />

the wattage of light you desire..<br />

Take a beach ball or large balloon the size you<br />

want, construct a stiff wire frame around it and<br />

deflate it and pull it out. Insert the ends of the wire<br />

frame between the nail-on plate and the wood and<br />

screw it down tight. Now wrap it with paper,<br />

muslin, whatever and wala! A rigid Chinese lantern!<br />

Just bear in mind the temperature of a 150 watt or<br />

higher bulb might brown your material if the ball is<br />

too small. You can get a variety of fire retardant<br />

materials at a fabric shop, or you could use Rosco<br />

shower curtain or spun or any type of diffusion-go<br />

crazy.<br />

Test it in the garage for a few hours to make sure it<br />

won't embarrass you when you whip it out in<br />

public. (we can't have that!) With a 213 (3400K 250<br />

watt bulb) in it you'd have a pretty beefy lantern,<br />

and you can easily put it on a "hand squeezer" (a<br />

600 watt dimmer sold at any hardware store), and<br />

dial into perfection. Make a bunch of them and tell<br />

production they have to rent them for enough<br />

money to make back what they screwed you out of<br />

your rate. Good luck.<br />

Page 257


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Panaruss<br />

Every tool has it's application.<br />

Recently I was put in a situation where I had to<br />

light seven woman in various different settings,<br />

around a table, in a living room, in a den etc. The<br />

catch is three cameras had to roll on them in<br />

opposing directions simultaneously, and two had<br />

to be on moving dollies. In other words, light 360<br />

without seeing a stand, and have virtually<br />

shadowless lighting, so there was a place for the<br />

two overhead mic booms to float without casting a<br />

shadow. The dialogue was all spontaneous, so the<br />

cameras had to be prepared to be on any one<br />

person, at any given time without shooting the<br />

camera in the opposing direction. I don't know<br />

how, but somehow it worked.<br />

The one thing I do know is that it would have been<br />

more difficult, if not impossible without the<br />

lanterns. I was able to have a simple over head grid<br />

supported with easily camouflaged polecats with<br />

aluminium cross beams. Because of the light<br />

weight nature of the lanterns and the low profile<br />

Page 258


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

zip cord that could be strung to the lights I could<br />

get away with a lot.<br />

The other key factor, which is a hot tip, is to use<br />

black rip stop nylon to skirt or turban the lanterns.<br />

It is light weight (unlike duvateen) and wraps and<br />

pins to taste. Personally, I love the way the light<br />

falls off on a face, particularly when it can be used<br />

close to the subject.<br />

Just remember, if the Queen had balls, she'd be<br />

King. Enough said.<br />

Mark<br />

Even I would have opted for Chinese lanterns in<br />

that situation.<br />

A nail on plate is a metal plate, usually about 4x6<br />

inches with a 5/8 inch "baby" stud, (perfect for<br />

inserting into the largest hole in a gobo head)<br />

sticking out from the middle of one side. It's a<br />

common item on any grip package, often screwed<br />

to a pancake to put a small light on the ground (a<br />

rig we affectionately call a "directors chair"), but I<br />

couldn't tell you what baby plates are called in<br />

German.<br />

Page 259


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Remember the discussion called for a rigid Chinese<br />

lantern. You could easily screw two pieces of wood<br />

together and use a screw in eye-bolt for a hanging<br />

lantern, the most popular use. The wire could be<br />

non-insulated solid copper or aluminum around #8<br />

gauge, which is pretty easy to find in hardware<br />

stores or electrical supply stores, but if I was<br />

desperate I'd use coat hangers, or fence wire from<br />

a farm supply store.<br />

You could tape, glue (consider temperature), or<br />

even solder the wires at the "south pole".<br />

You asked what I prefer? I have often used a little<br />

MR-16 bulb Soft-box which I make myself using a<br />

QVC projector housing on a little piece of wood.<br />

I make them with foam core "snoots" or "Croneycones",<br />

black side in, and usually 216 diffusion<br />

about halfway between the bulb and the end of the<br />

snoot. There are a bunch of MR-16 bulbs available<br />

(they're projector bulbs) and I've used 12-volt DC<br />

bulbs as well as 110 volt AC versions. Pick your<br />

wattage and color temp, but be careful not to make<br />

something that will go up in flames on set. I make<br />

the snoot size per application, and I use black<br />

paper tape to control the spill, or wrap the light<br />

right around the talent’s face. They're light enough<br />

to hang, tape, or clip about anywhere. You can clip<br />

Page 260


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

gels, scrims and half scrims to them. If you think<br />

about it, they're just extremely small light weight<br />

chimeras built specifically for the shot.<br />

They won't flare the lens, and in most applications<br />

I'd vote for them for quality of light, ease of use,<br />

and versatility over a Chinese lantern.<br />

Panaruss<br />

An interesting idea, but it seems like an awful lot<br />

of trouble. I'm not really sure why you would want<br />

it to be rigid in the first place (and that's not<br />

exactly what was requested in the original post). I<br />

kind of like being able to squash my lanterns into a<br />

2000' film can at the end of the day and carry it<br />

away under my arm. Wouldn't rigid lanterns take<br />

up a disproportionate amount of space in the truck<br />

in relation to their usefulness?<br />

How about this:<br />

Ever notice the fixture plate that covers the ugly<br />

hole in the ceiling over hanging household fixtures<br />

(like chandeliers)? Some of these plates are very<br />

lightweight and the right diam eter to cover the<br />

opening in the top of a lantern. They usually have a<br />

Page 261


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

hole in the middle for the wire already, and<br />

sometimes the hole is threaded. They also usually<br />

have two holes on each side for mounting the thing<br />

to studs in the ceiling.<br />

If you can get a piece of aluminum or rigid plastic<br />

conduit the size of the threaded center hole, you're<br />

halfway there. If not, drill out the hole.<br />

Thread the conduit, screw it in, and you have a<br />

cover for the top, very similar to what David<br />

described in his original post.<br />

The challenge would be to find the perfect fastener<br />

to use the existing mounting holes to attach the<br />

plate directly to the lantern's wire support frame.<br />

Preferably you would use something that would<br />

hook around the top of the frame and extend<br />

through the mounting holes, allowing the user to<br />

tighten the plate down against the frame. Maybe a<br />

pair of small-gauge eyebolts with wing nuts? The<br />

eye bolts could actually live on the frame when the<br />

lantern is squashed.<br />

I think I would also want to find a way to brace the<br />

bottom end of the center conduit against the<br />

middle of the lantern frame for extra stability.<br />

A bit of wire twisted around in there somehow<br />

would probably do it until a more permanent<br />

solution could be devised.<br />

Page 262


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

It seems as though all the materials I've mentioned<br />

here would be available at your friendly<br />

neigborhood hardware, lighting, and electrical<br />

supplystores. In fact, I think I'll start looking.<br />

Anybody have any improvements or criticisms of<br />

the idea?<br />

Chris Ray<br />

Hi, I was Phillippe's focus puller on Mary Reilly -<br />

(where the pic in the Panavision catalogue comes<br />

from) and can tell you how these are made.<br />

There's no trade secret here, his gaffer John<br />

Higgins had these made up and quite a few people<br />

are using them in the UK - I've got a few in my<br />

garage! It's not the fixture, it's how you use it. ;-)<br />

In the UK - don't know about elsewhere I'm afraid -<br />

you can buy threaded quarter inch steel(or<br />

brass)tube which will accept a standard metal<br />

lightbulb fitting with a threaded hole in the base.<br />

Two nuts and large washers are also required. Cut<br />

a piece of tube about 12" to 18". Attach the<br />

lampholder at one end. The Chinese lantern that<br />

you should be able to buy in various sizes will have<br />

Page 263


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

a simple internal wire frame to hold it open. At the<br />

top there should be a piece of the wire frame<br />

designed to loop over the cable in a domestic<br />

situation. Just clamp this in between the nuts and<br />

washers, positioned so as to hold the bulb in the<br />

centre of the lantern. It's a good idea to use a 2-3<br />

foot flying lead on the lantern so it can be quickly<br />

replaced via a cheap connection block in situ,<br />

rather than wire them all up to expensive lighting<br />

connectors - they don't have a long life!<br />

At the bottom of the lantern cover the hole with a<br />

small piece of diffusion material, F3 or similar,<br />

secured with paper staples. Gelling the lantern was<br />

a perennial problem - large pieces clipped to the<br />

outside are awkward to secure and noisy. If you<br />

use them inside they tend to burn due to the heat<br />

of the photoflood. Best compromise would<br />

probably be inside on a wire frame constructed<br />

from a coathanger or similar stiff wire in a cylinder<br />

shape and secured via nuts and washers on the<br />

tube. To minimise spill you can paint the back half<br />

of some of your lanterns black with a water based<br />

paint.<br />

It's also a good idea to spray all your lanterns with<br />

a fireproofing compound before use - they burn<br />

very quickly otherwise and can introduce an<br />

Page 264


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

undesirable orange flicker on your subject - and<br />

the director probably won't use the take anyway<br />

because of the look of faint alarm on the artists<br />

face..........!<br />

Seriously though they can be hazardous and<br />

should be treated with respect. The cabling and the<br />

lantern aren't really up to constant use and it's best<br />

to make up a batch at a time.<br />

But the light they produce is terrific, n'est pas?<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Page 265


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Cold Conditions<br />

Cold climate cousins<br />

I have been asked to research a mountain climbing<br />

doco shoot in South<br />

America. The producers are keen to go with small<br />

three chip Sony DV cameras due to their light<br />

weight and expendable nature. I have not shot a<br />

project with these cameras but I have played with<br />

them and have been surprised by the quality<br />

although without doubt inferior to 16mm or<br />

betacam.<br />

Although I agree that these cameras are not<br />

"professional" as such but when climbing 6000<br />

meters the light weight is very very attractive and<br />

the low cost means several cameras can be taken.<br />

My questions relate more to the operation of gear<br />

in temperatures likely to go down to -20 Celsius.<br />

Here in Australia I have had plenty of practice in<br />

the desert shooting at +45 C but little in "Arctic"<br />

conditions. Does anyone make heated or insulated<br />

covers for the small cameras and any other handy<br />

Page 266


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

hints re gear and batteries when it becomes brass<br />

monkey weather.<br />

Tom "leave the surfboard at home" Gleeson<br />

I cannot make any comment about using the DV<br />

Cam as I know very little about it.<br />

However as far as keeping the camera warm is<br />

concerned have you seen/had any experience with<br />

the flexible heated pads ? (the only source I can<br />

find is RS components (book-2-564)Nov 97) These<br />

APPEAR from the blurb to be a very good answer to<br />

these kinds of problems.<br />

I was wondering has anyone had any experience of<br />

making a Barney for either a film or video camera<br />

from these pads?<br />

Justin Pentecost<br />

Page 267


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Once I had a problem while working with a JVC KY<br />

35 camera which are very sensitive to low<br />

temperature situations. My solution was (while I<br />

was shooting in minus 40 degrees Celsius) to tape<br />

a pocket heater (which uses Zippo lighter fuel and<br />

last almost 24 hours) to the cameras heat sensitive<br />

head. The metal body spread the heat to the whole<br />

body and I had no problems with cold. I even didn't<br />

use a Barney or any cover. You may find these kind<br />

of pocket heaters (or pocket stoves, whatever they<br />

call) in most of the outdoor accessories shops.<br />

I don't have any idea about altitude problems, but I<br />

watched two or three low budget Turkish<br />

documentaries which shot with V8 cameras. Poor<br />

picture quality but they had working if I could<br />

watch them.<br />

Hope this helps.<br />

Dogan Sariguzel<br />

Page 268


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I have used some of those disposable heating pads<br />

on a couple of shoots in the past. I find an<br />

interesting selection of these available in<br />

outdoor/camping & hunting stores. The pads come<br />

in sizes ranging from 4" squares up to 24"x24". I<br />

have an old [but incredibly sharp!!] Zeiss 10:1 T3<br />

zoom on one of my SR-2 packages which tends to<br />

get a little sluggish when zooming in temperatures<br />

below freezing. I simply "activate" one of these<br />

pads and wrap it around the lens, of course making<br />

sure it does not conflict with any rotating stuff. I<br />

secure it in place with a long Velcro strip and<br />

insulate it with a piece of an old space blanket.<br />

It works!<br />

These pads are disposable and last an hour or two.<br />

Be advised not to rip one while it is on the camera,<br />

they are stuffed with some type of a "saw-dust"<br />

like powder. Maybe enclose them in a plastic ziplock<br />

bag first.<br />

The larger pads could be stuffed inside your sound<br />

Barney to help keep the mag & body warm. And<br />

keep one in your pocket for yourself [don't forget<br />

your comfort too!]<br />

Page 269


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

They warm up to around 120 degree F, not bad!<br />

Stay Warm,<br />

Jeff<br />

Thanks for the interesting information.<br />

I have to confess that these pads were not what I<br />

had in mind (however I will go out and buy a few<br />

anyway for reasons you will see below :).<br />

The pads I was referring too are flexible and<br />

cuttable to any shape (my idea was to make a<br />

heated Barney for my SR). They run on 12V power<br />

at various ratings from 1.25W (50x25mm) 80W<br />

(200x400mm).<br />

Of course it very much depends on the size of<br />

your production. If you have to lug all your power<br />

up the mountain in a backpack then Jeff's solution<br />

would be by far your better bet.<br />

Page 270


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Last January I did a shoot in Prague when the<br />

temperature was -25 degrees. I had a folded up<br />

(which is STRICTLY against the instructions!)<br />

electric blanket with a thermostat covering the<br />

camera which we removed to shoot.<br />

I saw a company on the www that was offering a<br />

12V electric blanket for about 30 or 40 dollars US.<br />

If you have copious quantities of 12V power then<br />

this is also a possible solution.<br />

Justin Pentecost<br />

I'm wondering if you have given any thought to<br />

how you will manage condensation when you open<br />

this Barney for film mag changes?<br />

Sudden temperature changes tends to muck things<br />

up. If you only heat the Barney to less than<br />

freezing, then condensation would become a non-<br />

issue. I would guess that + 20 - 30 degrees is<br />

within the operating temperature of most cameras.<br />

Page 271


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've been amazed before at the solutions to<br />

problems posted here. I would love to hear some<br />

ideas on how to manage condensation if the<br />

Barney/camera is heated above freezing.<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

The answer is simple :) never let the temperature<br />

change too much. What we were really worried<br />

about was taking the camera from a warm<br />

apartment into the freezing outside. By keeping<br />

the camera constantly warm we avoided<br />

condensation altogether.<br />

Also I am not sure about the camera being good to<br />

-30 degrees. I would think that at that<br />

temperature the lubrication would no longer be<br />

effective and would tend to drag the mechanism.<br />

Personally I found it more difficult shooting in<br />

Dubai going from hideous air-conditioning to the<br />

outside (45 degrees 80% humidity).<br />

Page 272


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The answer to this was not to use the aircon in cars<br />

and leave the windows open. Interestingly it was<br />

possible to leave a vehicle unattended in this state.<br />

Justin Pentecost<br />

Maybe I haven't shot in cold enough conditions,<br />

but I have never seen anything that is warm<br />

covered with condensate when brought into the<br />

cold. The problem has always been in taking cold<br />

equipment into warm environments. If your<br />

concern were valid, wouldn't we be seeing moisture<br />

condensing on the outsides of warm coffee cups<br />

out on the cold locations? I'm not a rocket<br />

scientist, but in my experience, heat dries things<br />

out! :-)<br />

We shot a feature years ago using an English ACL<br />

as prime camera. Quite a bit of shooting was done<br />

in sub-freezing weather, not a pretty situation for<br />

that camera! We made a vinyl weather Barney for<br />

the camera that had a skirt attached that<br />

surrounded the fluid head. Beneath the tripod we<br />

Page 273


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

hung a 3000 BTU catalytic heater in the open air.<br />

The heated air would funnel up into that skirt and<br />

warm the camera (and the operator's eye on the<br />

finder!) Camera ran faultless and perfectly dry. On<br />

another feature we were shooting in upper<br />

Wisconsin in January with an SR-II. We used only a<br />

weather Barney, no heater. Although the SR-II is<br />

supposedly limited to -4 deg. F, we shot in -13<br />

deg. F with no problems. The camera took about 2<br />

or 3 seconds to get to speed, but ran in sync.<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

-------------------------------------------<br />

-------------------------------------------<br />

---<br />

You may want to consider using the new Cannon 3<br />

chip camera. It lists for $500 more, but has better<br />

optics (interchangeable lenses).<br />

Try placing the camera in a sealable plastic bag<br />

(the kind used to store leftovers), the condensation<br />

Page 274


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

will then form on the inside of the bag, not on the<br />

camera.<br />

Jessica "too many cheapo industrial shoots" Gallant<br />

...the condensation will form on the *outside* of<br />

the bag, not inside.<br />

Jessica, I know what you meant, but others here<br />

may not have...<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

For a panavision Job, I Sewed a "PANANEGRO"<br />

Basically a duvetyne Barney, that I could stuff a<br />

small heating pad into. Kept the Torgue motors<br />

warm enough. Of course always needed to have a<br />

Genny from the electric department, but after the<br />

first request, they set that up within five minutes of<br />

arriving at the location.<br />

Page 275


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Doesn't help you on top of a mountain though.<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

The 3000 BTU catalytic heater I referred to in my<br />

other posting about this wasn't heavy, tho' a little<br />

bulky, and had a bail handle to carry it with. It's a<br />

Coleman camping product, and would have a lot of<br />

other applications on a frigid camping trip!! Most<br />

bareness are fitted, padded bags that surround the<br />

camera, usually with zip open segments so you can<br />

access various parts of the camera.<br />

Another insulated bag (with heater) wouldn't be a<br />

bad idea for carrying loaded mags.<br />

The arrangement I described for our English ACL<br />

was so warm I suppose the new magazine warmed<br />

up pretty quickly, and I would guess that since<br />

winter conditions usually combine with low<br />

humidity, the interior of a heated Barney isn't going<br />

to contain much moisture. In any case I've never<br />

Page 276


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

had that problem and haven't heard it described as<br />

a possibility.<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

First, be prepared to a slower working condition,<br />

everything is cold and slows down.<br />

Film gets very brittle and razor sharp, load<br />

magazines in warm condition if possible. 35 mm<br />

cameras, load in warm conditions if possible, if not<br />

possible have a lot of patients. 16 mm cameras<br />

with coax magazines are easier to use.<br />

If equipment is moved from a warm area into the<br />

cold, and it is not snowing you have no problem. If<br />

it is snowing, either pre chill the camera before<br />

going into the snow storm, or protect the warm<br />

camera with a wet suit or plastic covers. If you do<br />

not follow the precautions, the snow will hit the<br />

warm camera , melt, seep into the camera, and will<br />

freeze once the camera gear gets cold and the<br />

camera will stop working.<br />

Page 277


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

If equipment is moved from the cold into the warm<br />

environment, seal the individual components air<br />

tight in plastic bags in the cold place a towel under<br />

the gear in the camera before moving into the<br />

warm condition. Once inside a warm room,<br />

condensation will form on the inside of the plastic<br />

bag and will run down inside the bag, and the<br />

condensation is collected by the towel. Do not<br />

open the sealed bag prematurely, or condensation<br />

will form inside the camera gear incl. the lenses.<br />

It only takes few degrees temperature difference to<br />

create condensation.<br />

Once condensation forms on the inside of lenses,<br />

the damage is done and leaves many times spots<br />

on the inside of the lens elements.<br />

Have the gear cold weather prepared and tested by<br />

the rental facility you rent from, it is recommended<br />

that mechanical parts on camera and lens gear is<br />

lubricated with special cold weather lubricants.<br />

Have the cameras tested in a freezing chamber, not<br />

for the mechanical but for the electronic<br />

components in today’s sophisticated, electronic<br />

camera gear. Bring along spare electronic boards.<br />

Page 278


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Have enough battery power, remember the Ni Cad<br />

batteries loss 10% of their rated capacity for each<br />

10 degree below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, it is easy<br />

to figure out what is left in good batteries at minus<br />

20 degrees. Keep batteries warm, possible under<br />

your coats etc.<br />

Power cables may crack , and zoom motors work<br />

slower.<br />

Any more questions call the manufactures for more<br />

info.<br />

Juergen, Arriflex<br />

My experience is to keep all cameras below<br />

freezing when used outside so that no frost forms<br />

on them. If you bring a camera into a warm<br />

environment and the bring it back out {or the<br />

opposite} the moisture will condense on any<br />

surface including inside lenses or viewfinders. If<br />

you must bring cameras indoors, plastic bag them<br />

and allow them to come to ambient temperature<br />

Page 279


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

before handling. try to preload as many mags as<br />

feasible before the shooting day when your hands<br />

are warm enough to feel the film and as always be<br />

wary of moisture if the equipment goes above<br />

freezing.<br />

My experience with batteries is to wear them on<br />

your body inside your jacket and to have THREE<br />

times as many as normal. As far as preparing the<br />

camera itself remove all lubricants and replace<br />

them with a much lighter grade where gears are<br />

involved.<br />

This is from my experience with two films that I<br />

shot In severe environments in Alaska and on top<br />

of Mount Washington in winter at -30c<br />

Mark Forman Film Productions<br />

I did 2 weeks of shooting last January in Montana<br />

where the ambient air temperature was -14<br />

degrees F (-25.5 degrees C) There was a constant<br />

25 mph wind blowing, but we won't talk about<br />

Page 280


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

wind chill because I hate to remember and cameras<br />

don't sweat, so it doesn't matter to the camera. We<br />

where shooting with an Arri 35-3 and a 435. We<br />

didn't have any trouble with the cameras at all. We<br />

did have trouble with the zoom lenses getting stiff.<br />

We used medical electric heating pads inside lens<br />

"barneys" that kept them warm enough to zoom<br />

and focus properly. We ran the heating pads from<br />

little Honda lunchbox sized generators.<br />

We put the sealed lead acid camera batteries inside<br />

Igloo coolers with chemical or lighter fuel hand<br />

warmers inside and they worked fine. We cut little<br />

holes in the top for the cables to get out.<br />

By the way, you will find out that you and your crew<br />

will freeze before the cameras do. The very very<br />

best cold weather boots are made by a company<br />

called Northern Outfitters (800) 944-9276. The<br />

boot is called the Expedition Boot. US$200 and<br />

worth every penny! It is very unique in that you do<br />

not wear any kind of socks with it, you put your<br />

bare foot in it. On the last shoot, the people that<br />

had them were toasty warm and everyone else, no<br />

matter what they wore, Sorels, etc, froze. The<br />

Page 281


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

company makes a full line of cold weather gear<br />

too, parkas, overalls, gloves, etc.<br />

Bill Bennett, Los Angeles<br />

The only major problem I've had shooting at -25<br />

was with an Arri 3, not the camera but the CE base,<br />

it went berserk totally unable to hold a fixed speed<br />

but worked fine at "normal" temperatures.<br />

It's best to keep the kit at sub-zero to avoid<br />

condensation problems, I've shipped kit with packs<br />

of silica gel in the cases to keep moisture levels<br />

down as well.<br />

Lenses tend to get very stiff and of course batteries<br />

die very quickly.<br />

Oh yes, Jason made rubber coverings for the<br />

handle on the Arrihead, my fingers kept sticking to<br />

them!<br />

Geoff<br />

Page 282


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Page 283


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

CP16<br />

I recently had some e-correspondence with Derrick<br />

Whitehouse regarding CP-16's and I thought the<br />

group might be interested in his comments on<br />

some issues which have come up on the list.<br />

Derrick says that you can drive the camera with<br />

18V but you should not use 24V.<br />

Regarding shutters, he had several interesting<br />

comments.<br />

The three flavors of shutters are 156 degree<br />

bowtie, 144 degree bowtie, and 170 degree halfmoon.<br />

According to Derrick, the smearing of<br />

highlights in certain conditions with the bowtie<br />

shutter is a design issue, not a maintenance issue.<br />

The 144 degree shutter is less prone so smearing<br />

than 156 degree. In any case, the conditions he<br />

described under which it can be observed:<br />

-- lens wide open<br />

-- lens at wide angle<br />

-- highlights in the top right or left hand corners.<br />

Half moon shutters were built into cameras sn<br />

1995 and up. Bowtie shutters are not upgradable<br />

to half-moon.<br />

Page 284


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I would be interested in any other points of view on<br />

these items.<br />

(Jeff K.??)<br />

Mark Schlicher<br />

Sunporch Entertainment<br />

Derrick Whitehouse is a good friend of mine and<br />

the ace CP repair person. I agree with his<br />

statements fully. For CP repairs (and Steadicam<br />

sales, and everything else) he is highly<br />

recommended. Ken Hale, his lens guy, is also<br />

excellent and affordable.<br />

However, I personally don't love the CP16R, I like<br />

the non-reflex CP. (Not with a zoom, but with a<br />

10mm Switar and a custom optical finder.) Great<br />

camera, none of the shutter problems mentioned<br />

re the reflex, lighter, quieter. But that's a<br />

specialist opinion.<br />

>Derrick says that you can drive the camera with<br />

18V but you should<br />

Page 285


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

>not use 24V.<br />

But given how inexpensive and convenient the CP<br />

onboard batteries are, I can't imagine why anyone<br />

would want to use an external battery, except in<br />

an emergency. CP originated the onboard battery,<br />

a great and important feature. Who wants to wear<br />

a battery belt???!!<br />

Jeff "CPs are fine, though I also own Aatons"<br />

Kreines<br />

For my 2 cents, as a CP owner, I've liked my CP.<br />

It's a CP16 Reflex (the mirror, not an Angeniuex<br />

with the prism.) with a video prism and the half<br />

moon shutter. It's great for hand held because its<br />

light. I like to use an external battery because the<br />

on boards tend to die too quickly for my liking.<br />

As far as the shutter goes, do not get a butterfly<br />

shutter of any kind! They suck! If you do do a<br />

sunset with a CP with a butterfly shutter you will<br />

get a massive streak of light across the picture in<br />

every frame.<br />

Page 286


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Not good.<br />

As far as 18v vs. 24v, I've been using a 24volt<br />

block which I built for $150.00 US. Its top output<br />

is 26v and it lasts for weeks between charges,<br />

probably because the CP doesn't use much<br />

amperage. If your going to built a battery, make<br />

sure you use Lead Acid cells and 3 pin XLR<br />

connectors, that way you can use a Panavision<br />

battery in a pinch. I've also bolted a left side<br />

bracket on the CP so I can use the pan handle off a<br />

O'Connor 1030 head. I am curious though, Jeff,<br />

why Derrick says not to use 24v. The manual<br />

which I have for my body says I can go up to 27v.<br />


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

>CP originated the onboard battery, a great and<br />

important<br />

>feature. Who wants to wear a battery belt???!!<br />

Until today I thought that was the Aaton7,<br />

Photokina September 1972.<br />

--jp :-(<br />

Don't feel too bad. There are enough pioneering<br />

features on the Aaton to last and last!<br />

The CP was essentially the ultimate Auricon<br />

conversion. Not a bad thing, but evolutionary not<br />

revolutionary. I believe I saw the prototype CP16<br />

(different handgrip -- non-adjustable, and<br />

Auricon centerplate) in late 1970 at Victor Duncan<br />

in Chicago. Yes, there were earlier cameras with<br />

batteries attached, but I am limiting this to<br />

shoulder -held sync cameras.<br />

The Maysles brothers' "bazooka" camera had one,<br />

albeit huge and clumsy, and Pennebaker worked<br />

Page 288


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

on it after a famous incident at the Monterey pop<br />

festival, where someone gave him some wine laced<br />

with acid and he forgot he was wearing a battery<br />

belt and that it was attached to his camera, which<br />

soon ended up on the floor. (If you look at the<br />

stills of him there, you see his handgrip -- the<br />

little Arri plastic grip -- is broken off the camera.<br />

Pennebaker was the first to put a handgrip on the<br />

front of the camera for shoulder -held use, a great<br />

invention!) Anyway, the lens was also knocked off,<br />

and Jimi Hendrix was on in an hour. Thank god<br />

for the portable Richter collimator... or Hendrix's<br />

amazing Wild Thing (w/flaming guitar) might not<br />

have been captured in focus...<br />

Jeff "tell me another war story, Grampa<br />

Pennebaker" Kreines<br />

Could anyone please tell me, assuming the CP is<br />

running up to specs, if there is a huge difference<br />

made by shooting on a non-pin camera like the<br />

CP? Also, does anyone know a nice way to check<br />

Page 289


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the gate on the CP without having to physically<br />

push the mirror out of the way? I know on the SR's<br />

you can just hit the test button and the mirror will<br />

swing around for one frame.<br />

Thanks very much,<br />

Kevin Hoffman<br />

Actually I feel the BL-mag is very simple to load,<br />

and certainly if you are shooting double system,<br />

then the BL is a hell of a lot easier to thread than<br />

the CP. Hand-holdability is a good point to<br />

consider.<br />

As for checking the Gate. DO NOT PUSH THE<br />

MIRROR. Think about it. You are often times<br />

focusing off of the image reflected by the mirror.<br />

Push the mirror and you risk moving it out of the<br />

proper position, maybe adding a feew thousands of<br />

an inch to your ground glass distance ( although<br />

the lens to film plane distance wouldn't be<br />

affected), making eye focusing un-reliable. Of<br />

course you might just push the mirror hard enough<br />

Page 290


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

to make it go out of timing with the mechanism.<br />

The mirror is meant to be driven by the Camera, it<br />

is not meant to drive the entire camera mechanism.<br />

Of course these just might be me being extremely<br />

over cautious. The lack of an external inching knob<br />

is a pain. Run the take 2 to 3 seconds longer than<br />

the take. This should get the film into the mag. (<br />

might need five seconds), and then open the<br />

camera door, and use the internal inching knob.<br />

Registration, A well maintained Camera will<br />

produce steady images.<br />

Registration pin or no. However the C.P. 16 has a<br />

claw that enters the film in a curved rather than<br />

straight in manner. Whether or not this is a<br />

registration problem, I don't know. Are you doing<br />

double exposing Matte passes? The best way to<br />

check the registration is to shoot a Registration<br />

test.<br />

My personal experience with the C.P.16 has lead<br />

me to the decision that every so often, check that<br />

the loop hasn't been lost, and never never<br />

start/stop the camera. Once I turn the camera on, I<br />

let it run for at least 5 seconds before stopping it.<br />

Page 291


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

However most of my experience with CP16's were<br />

from College owned and maintained cameras.<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

In general, registration does not get overly critical<br />

until you have something to compare it with. For<br />

example, if you're doing superimposition’s of titles<br />

over a distant mountain background scene, you<br />

might see some unsteadiness with non-pinregistered<br />

cameras. On the other hand, if there is<br />

no comparison reference, you would have to be<br />

pretty unsteady before anyone noticed.<br />

Arri 16's, Eclairs, and Aatons have a pilot pin<br />

registration which is not a true registration pin like<br />

on a Mitchell or a Maurer. Whether the pilot pin is<br />

actually effective is the subject of some debate,<br />

because the pin has a bit of slop around it and<br />

does not "jam" the film into position like a true<br />

registration pin. At the risk of opening up a major<br />

debate, I'd venture to say the the spring loaded<br />

Page 292


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

gate of a CP-16 probably gives one as much image<br />

stability as a pilot pin.<br />

The mirror shutter on a CP-16R has a cycling<br />

circuit that brings the mirror into viewing position<br />

and closes the shutter...hopefully preventing flash<br />

frames. If that no longer works or you're shooting<br />

with a CP-16 non-reflex, use the main shaft<br />

inching knob inside the camera to rotate the<br />

mechanism. Don't want to fog the film inside the<br />

camera?....move the shutter carefully with your<br />

finger.<br />

Norm Bleicher<br />

Panavision Dallas<br />

Knock on wood, my CP-16R has not lost its loop<br />

on me, but I must add that Paul at Whitehouse did<br />

a superb overhaul on the camera (can you say ten<br />

cans of film on one battery charge? Now that's a<br />

smooth-running movement!)<br />

Has your client had an overhaul?<br />

Page 293


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

FWIW, I thread the top loop so it looks just like the<br />

threading diagram and I have followed the Sylvia<br />

Carlson book's recommendation of 1/4" clearance<br />

(when running) at the bottom. It seems like this<br />

approach results in a very specific number of perfs<br />

in the loop, but I've never counted. I'll try to<br />

remember to mark and count the perfs next time I<br />

do a scratch test.<br />

Unlike Jeff, I don't skip the bottom rollers, just<br />

timid I guess...<br />

Regards,<br />

Mark Schlicher<br />

Sunporch Entertainment<br />

Page 294


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Complex Crane Moves<br />

I have to make a shot in a few weeks that goes<br />

something like this: Camera starts seven or eight<br />

feet into a doorway, moves back leading actor<br />

through an (already) open door, out about four or<br />

five feet, boom up and tilt down with a pan to the<br />

right to reveal actor outside the door on a two foot<br />

ledge, twenty five feet up, on the third floor. The<br />

opening frame needs to be well inside the building<br />

and the final frame should be an *over* selling the<br />

geography and showing the ground, probably on a<br />

zoom so I can get a bit more size on our hero at<br />

the head of the shot.<br />

So far the leading candidate for this shot is a<br />

Javelin, HotHead with some track on a seven by<br />

fourteen foot scissor lift. We'll stabilise the scissor<br />

lift by guy-wire from corners to equipment trucks<br />

and place the lift as far away from the building as<br />

we can - probably six to eight feet. Which is not a<br />

lot since it would be really nice to look almost<br />

straight down and NOT see the base of the lift<br />

.<br />

Page 295


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

This is the kind of shot I would think the<br />

Technocrane eats for lunch but there isn't one in<br />

town and we can't afford any non-local gear. No<br />

Titans. No Technocrane. I can't imagine getting a<br />

jib onto a Pheonix - I'd have to build up the base<br />

too much to accommodate the jib operator. I don't<br />

think any stand alone unit can get in ( at the head<br />

of the shot) as far as I need...<br />

Am I missing any options here? Is there a GML ?<br />

(grip mailing list )<br />

TIA,<br />

D.P.<br />

How about using a Steadicam with the operator<br />

stepping onto a crane outside? This gives you<br />

unlimited flexibility for the beginning of the shot<br />

and it should be no problem to achieve your<br />

desired final framing.<br />

Bill (I like Steadicam) Crow<br />

Page 296


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

American Interactive Pictures<br />

OK Bill. It's good to like Steadicam, but how do<br />

you pull this off without the front end of the crane<br />

instantly slamming down to the ground. Stepping<br />

off a crane is one thing because you c an always<br />

have a couple of guys step onto the nose when its<br />

on the ground, but stepping on while the thing is<br />

flying?<br />

Michael Siegel<br />

In the words of Tattoo... ""the crane! the crane!""<br />

...sorry.<br />

This was used, in reverse, in ""Men in Black"" for<br />

the scene in which Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones<br />

enter Jeebs' Pawn Shop. The shot starts off high on<br />

the crane, sliding down to the street, then<br />

following the actors to the store front. If you watch<br />

Page 297


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

closely, you can actually see the moment where the<br />

operator walks off the crane platform.<br />

Barry Sonnenfeld did a GREAT audio commentary<br />

on the LD version, literally describing every single<br />

shot. Well worth the rental, even if you don't like<br />

sci-fi.<br />

Jason Ahles<br />

This can be done , if one is careful, in the following<br />

manner:<br />

set up the crane so that it is balanced with the<br />

steadycam operator on it. Put it at the pick-up<br />

point with suitable ballast on it and then WITHOUT<br />

setting the tilt lock, crib up the back of the bucket<br />

with sturdy apple boxes or better yet solid pieces<br />

of timber. You should be able to unload the nose.<br />

When the operator steps on the crane, unweighting<br />

the bucket, slide the cribbing out and off you go!<br />

Page 298


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I am not commenting on the appropriateness of<br />

this methodology for getting this shot, merely on<br />

the mechanics of doing it this way.<br />

A second, slightly scarier way is to have someone<br />

else on the nose who gets off when the operator<br />

gets on.. this requires a scaffolding for him to step<br />

onto and has lots of opportunities for problems to<br />

occur....but could be done<br />

Mark ""the devil is in the details"" Weingartner<br />

Well, sounds extremely dangerous to me. I think<br />

Michael's point is well made! You could use a<br />

cherrypicker as opposed to a camera crane, which<br />

wouldn't need counterweighting but I suspect the<br />

rise would be rather slow and jerky.<br />

I think the original idea is about the most practical.<br />

The only alternatives seem to be either<br />

Technocrane or blue screen. You could get the art<br />

department to disguise the base of the scissor lift<br />

platform - section of alley wall etc? This might give<br />

you a little more elbow room.<br />

Page 299


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Mark, doing this thirty feet above the ground is a<br />

recipe for disaster, quite apart from the problems<br />

of getting the operator onto the crane nose safely.<br />

This is the kind of shot remote heads were<br />

invented for. If there isn't enough money to bring<br />

in the suitable equipment from out of town, then<br />

putting technicians lives and limbs on the line<br />

instead is not an option in my book. Do it another<br />

way or do it in two or three shots.<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Sounds like a good crane/head combo, but I<br />

question the steadiness of a scissor lift. Consider<br />

putting the crane on scaffolding instead, but be<br />

sure to check the weight capacity.<br />

Page 300


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I worked on a shot in New York as a crane tech<br />

where we had a Giraffe crane with a CamRemote<br />

head on about 20 feet of scaffolding. The shot was<br />

of the Belvedeer fountain in Central Park for the<br />

film ""One Fine Day"".<br />

The rigging grip was Matt Miller (NY based). DP was<br />

Florian Balhaus.<br />

Don Canfield<br />

I have half ruled that out since I don’t think I can<br />

get a crane that'll provide an adequate platform at<br />

the twenty six foot height required. Meaning,<br />

stable enough to accommodate a 300+ pound shift<br />

in balance at height.<br />

That said, it would be nice to start with a bit more<br />

flexibility off the top of the shot...<br />

D.P.<br />

Page 301


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I think I was specific in my post that I was<br />

explaining how one can effect a weight change as<br />

described on a counter -weighted crane and that I<br />

was NOT recommending this as the methodology<br />

for getting this particular shot. Read my other<br />

safety related post and you will see that I am more<br />

conservative about putting people at risk than<br />

most people in this business...<br />

...and I have spent many years strapping DP's<br />

into, onto, and under things, but only if the shot<br />

could not be done by strapping a piece of<br />

equipment there instead.<br />

I am specifically not a proponent of doing this shot<br />

as a Steadycam shot, but I would not presume to<br />

pass judgement on what the ""one true right way""<br />

to do the shot might be without knowing the<br />

specifics of the location , etc. I have spent<br />

hundreds of hours helping directors and DP's<br />

realize complex conceptual shots that never made<br />

the final cut...not because they weren't technically<br />

Page 302


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

good but because, in the end, they did not tell the<br />

story the best way.<br />

Perhaps another way to tell this part of the story<br />

will suggest itself.<br />

Perhaps not.<br />

Cheerfully,<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

This is not a particularly difficult or dangerous<br />

shot.<br />

It does require experienced and knowledgeable<br />

grips. Steadicam operator with rig, plus another<br />

grip stand on the crane's platform, and the crane<br />

operator balances it for this weight. Two other<br />

grips now step onto the platform from the outside<br />

of the rails, holding on to the rails. Steadicam<br />

operator steps off. Action! Steadicam operator<br />

steps onto the platform, grip on board spots him.<br />

Page 303


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

(Optionally, he attaches a safety line.) Two other<br />

grips step off, and the balanced crane booms up to<br />

complete the shot.<br />

The same technique can be used in reverse as well<br />

(ala the MIB shot.) This is one of the shots that<br />

Cinema Products teaches as part of their weeklong<br />

introductory Steadicam training class. To the<br />

best of my knowledge, they haven't lost a student<br />

yet.<br />

Bill Crow<br />

American Interactive Pictures<br />

"I remember a rig that attached a<br />

Steadicam op. (Jerry Holway I think) to an industrial<br />

crane (120 footer!!). The shot started as a<br />

standard Steadicam walk and talk leading a large<br />

group of people up a hill and then the operator<br />

was ""clicked"" by a grip to the crane and the<br />

operator flew 100 feet or so in the air to reveal the<br />

people had formed the Blue Cross symbol with<br />

their bodies.<br />

Page 304


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The rig was a modified climbing harness that the<br />

operator wore under his vest and designed to have<br />

his legs pulled back so he could get a straight<br />

down shot. I think there were 2 tethers on the vest<br />

as well to stop the operator from rotating.<br />

I don't know if this is of any use to you but it may<br />

get you the shot you<br />

need.<br />

Denis Moran<br />

"Hi All,<br />

I've seen something similar in the promo-video for<br />

the Panther Pegasus Crane. They did a shot in a<br />

room with somebody leaving this room. They then<br />

flew out of the window and down to pick the<br />

person up leaving the house through the front<br />

door. All in one take.<br />

Maybe you can get your hands on the video just to<br />

see how they did it. It might give you an idea. I<br />

Page 305


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

suppose you can make this shot with any other<br />

crane that is big enough, too.<br />

Hope this helps,<br />

Matthias A. ;-)<br />

>Chris Plevin<br />

While I agree with you, I think you may have<br />

misinterpreted my initial post in one respect. I DO<br />

have access to suitable equipment such as remote<br />

heads, some nice cranes, scaffolding and big<br />

scissor lifts. There was NEVER any question of<br />

doing this shot with a Steadicam for *availability*<br />

reasons.<br />

I also strongly agree that use of remote heads is<br />

indicated whenever possible - there just isn't<br />

enough advantage to having an operator on a<br />

crane for most shots. Granted, the risks aren't<br />

huge but there ARE risks.<br />

I remember being at the highest *one-rider* height<br />

on a Phoenix that had been built on about five feet<br />

Page 306


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

of scaffolding, it was windy, I was cold, we were<br />

loosing light....<br />

My focus puller at the time yells up, ""Hey Dave.<br />

Two words, <br />

metal fatigue."" You know that dense feeling you<br />

get in the pit of your stomach...? The bastard! I've<br />

never forgotten that. BTW, the shot turned out<br />

fine.<br />

D.P.<br />

I think you're right although I believe we can<br />

stabilize the lift. We may have to use the scissor lift<br />

for time reasons. I think the scaffolding would be<br />

steadier, but the ability to sweep out the scissor lift<br />

(when the shot's done) and the faster set-up time<br />

make it appealing. The big limitation of the scissor<br />

lift is a maximum weight of 2,000 pounds. The<br />

scaffolding can accommodate more weight.<br />

D.P.<br />

Page 307


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Sorry Michael, I did misunderstand. You're right;<br />

my technique doesn't work for this.<br />

This sounds like a shot for Jerry Holway (610/524-<br />

5979). Jerry is the master at flying with Steadicam.<br />

He regularly does shots where he is lifted straight<br />

up via a cable from an overhead crane. So, there<br />

would need to be a rolling scaffold platform<br />

outside the window. Jerry is attached to the cable<br />

crane, exits the window onto the platform and is<br />

lifted up. As soon as he clears the platform, it is<br />

rolled out of the shot. I don't know if this would be<br />

possible, (safety, stable shot when he is first lifted,<br />

etc.) but Jerry is the master of these kind of shots<br />

so he'd be the one to talk to.<br />

Bill Crow<br />

American Interactive Pictures<br />

Page 308


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Yep, always worth remembering that... many of<br />

these shots end up cut, or fragmented.<br />

But I think an A-Minima with the optional Helium -<br />

Zep (with GPS positioning and programmable<br />

keyframing) will do the trick! Of course, the<br />

35mm version, with an Aaton 35, is a bit larger...<br />

Jeff ""wish I knew where to rent this thing"" Kreines<br />

I am also somewhat overcautious on this one:<br />

Depending upon your crane and the number of<br />

extensions (especially rear extensions for<br />

counterweights) you could be well over this max<br />

weight with crane, hot-head, camera,<br />

counterweights, (and the small piece of track for<br />

the pull-out of the top door ???)...with 2-3 grips up<br />

there to perform the move (if I understand the<br />

pull-out correctly). Not a lot of room for that up<br />

there either !<br />

Page 309


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mind you, I have done a few crane shots, but never<br />

off of platforms. I have shot FX plates from scissor<br />

lifts, and they can be very difficult to tie-down<br />

nicely (we're talking some serious ""posttensioning""<br />

for a 25 ft. height). Otherwise, that<br />

scissor lift may be quite a wobble with that much<br />

mass swinging around. The center post of a crane<br />

going out of level that high up would make me<br />

really nervous.<br />

I hope you'll be back here posting about how well it<br />

went and how smoothly and quickly your crew built<br />

and struck the rigging. But it does sound a bit<br />

dicey without a telescoping crane on scaffolding, or<br />

2 scissored cranes, or doing it in cuts or<br />

wipes...etc.<br />

Mark<br />

Page 310


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Cross Processing<br />

I have to re-shoot a dream sequence that was lab<br />

damaged. I’m replacing the original DP who is<br />

booked. it is the only color scene in a B&W feature<br />

shot on 16mm.<br />

I suggested cross processing as an approach and<br />

the director loved it. He<br />

ordered Fuji 500EI reversal.<br />

I've never shot cross process and don’t know a lab<br />

that does it. The director has run the rest of the<br />

show thru Allied in Dallas.<br />

He wants it to be grainy, so rather than mess with<br />

the non- compliant reversal latitude I plan to shoot<br />

loose (leave room on the edges) and magnify the<br />

grain with a zoom crop in TK. I plan to shoot about<br />

10mm loose. I'm hoping the 500 does the rest.<br />

but as for the handling of exposure I need advice.<br />

the only thing I could find through a web search on<br />

infoseek is that still photographers overexpose by<br />

2 stops (doesn’t say what format) when crossing.<br />

Page 311


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

should I follow this rule in 16mm? anyone help on<br />

this? I checked the web page also but didn’t find<br />

this subject.<br />

thanks,<br />

Caleb Crosby<br />

500 ASA in 16mm, and zooming in on that ?<br />

sounds grainy to me. :-)<br />

Mark<br />

that’s actually what the director is wanting - I just<br />

don’t know how to expose for cross proc.<br />

Caleb<br />

Page 312


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

can anyone help out with tips on cross processing<br />

reversal? I was just hired to shoot a low budget<br />

horror film (not as cheesy as that might imply) and<br />

in the script there are several flashback sequences<br />

that the director wants different and intense look<br />

to them. I suggested crossprocessing reversal<br />

since that seems to give intensely saturated reds<br />

and high contrast. I talked to a guy at duArt, but<br />

about all the information he could pass on was that<br />

they do handle crossprocessing which didn't help<br />

me much. am I correct in the assumption that you<br />

shoot reversal, and develop it as negative,<br />

therefore getting a negative? will this give you a<br />

thinner negative? will it become some sort of issue<br />

when they have to conform the negative? what<br />

about exposure? are there any recommendations?<br />

I know that Richardson used it on UTurn and<br />

Dickinson used it on Clockers, and I’ve seen what I<br />

assume is crossprocessing on a number of music<br />

videos and commercials, any recommendations on<br />

films to watch that have this process?<br />

Page 313


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and finally, does anyone how the eclipse flashback<br />

scenes in Dolores Clayborne (excellent<br />

cinematography and an underappreciated film in<br />

my opinion) were done?<br />

spike lee's Clockers DP was Malik Sayeed. to get<br />

more information on cross processing in that film<br />

refer American cinematographer Sep. 95 issue<br />

cover story.<br />

few sequences in Steven Soderbergh's film The<br />

Underneath used this process.<br />

I heard that experts at Kodak are doubtful about<br />

the life time of the cross processed negative,<br />

because of potential problem with the fixing<br />

process.<br />

Someone pl. explain how to overcome this<br />

problem. when you process Ektachrome reversal<br />

film in a ECN-2 negative bath, will this unusual<br />

process affect or contaminate the developer? can<br />

Page 314


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

we use the same bath for normal processing and<br />

crossprocessing.?<br />

thanks<br />

kv anand.<br />

Check out the film "Fallen". They had some scenes<br />

that might be of interest to you. The scenes are<br />

when the demon character is pursuing it's next<br />

host. I would be interested if anybody knows how<br />

these scenes where shot, processed and timed.<br />

Also looks like anamorphic distortion was added.<br />

The shots are really effective.<br />

Joseph McDonnell<br />

Page 315


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I shot some cross processing tests a few months<br />

ago, comparing 7248 with '40 & '50. I shot scenes<br />

in a studio, under fluros and day exteriors.<br />

I won't try and explain the differences in the 'look'<br />

here, suffice to say, there is an increase in contrast<br />

and an extra vibrancy in some colour, with colour<br />

shifts. Anyone in Sydney (Tom & Toby) lurking on<br />

the CML is welcome to come in to Atlab and have a<br />

look and judge for themselves.<br />

However, what I can tell you is that we exposed the<br />

reversal stocks as per the rating on the can and<br />

processed as normal negative. Over exposure<br />

made the stock ungradable and under exposure<br />

made the blacks milky. We had two (2) choices<br />

during grading/timing - either grade the orange<br />

base into the stock (reversal stock DOES NOT have<br />

orange masking) or print with a 50 red/50 yellow<br />

filter. As we were comparing reversal with negative<br />

and wanted to get as close a match as possible, we<br />

opted to print with the filter, which gave us more<br />

favourable printing lights and subsequently more<br />

control with the grading. Grading the orange base<br />

into the reversal pushed the printing lights to the<br />

limit and left us with no room to move.<br />

Page 316


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

So how do you conform the negative? I would<br />

suggest that the cross processed reversal footage<br />

is made up on a separate roll, and that would then<br />

give you and the grader/timer the option to either<br />

grade in or print in the desired 'look'. By cutting<br />

the reversal and negative together will limit this<br />

option and may conclude in an undesirable result.<br />

Ultimately, like anything else, do a test first. Good<br />

luck.<br />

Simon Wicks<br />

Atlab Australia.<br />

Kv Anand asked how to overcome the problem<br />

that cross processed negative may have a limited<br />

storage life. Probably the safes t thing to do is to<br />

make an extra interpositive from it, and treat that<br />

IP as if it were your original. Let it be your most<br />

senior archival element. That's what we're doing<br />

on a feature that, for reasons intrinsic to the story,<br />

was shot on a mix of Super 16 and Super 8.<br />

Page 317


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

We regard the blow-up IP as if it were the original,<br />

but we also archive everything else. It's similar to<br />

making safety fine grains from nitrate.<br />

John Sprung<br />

Some labs simply refuse to process anything but<br />

negative through their ECN II baths, due to the<br />

potential contamination of the developer. We will<br />

cross-process small amounts of reversal (max<br />

1,200ft) on a daily basis as and when required,<br />

although I can't recall ever cross-processing more<br />

than about 800ft in one day, and never over a<br />

continuous period i.e.; 5 days straight.<br />

As for the longevity of the cross-processed footage<br />

- it varies depending on storage conditions, but we<br />

do know that it's certainly not for long, because the<br />

stock hasn't been through the correct process – it<br />

could go off in a matter of weeks or months. If it's<br />

Page 318


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

being used for a film finished production, we<br />

recommend that the required shots be cut and<br />

duped as quickly as possible. If it's being used for<br />

commercials or music clips etc, then do your tk<br />

transfer ASAP.<br />

regards<br />

Simon Wicks<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

We are thinking of trying cross processing for a<br />

film and want to get hold of all possible references.<br />

Motion Pictures, Commercials, Music Videos, etc.<br />

Any place I can go for a list or can anyone name off<br />

what comes to mind?<br />

Eric Swenson<br />

Page 319


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The current (July) issue of the English still photo<br />

magazine "Practical Photography" has an article on<br />

cross processing still color neg. and slide films.<br />

They show examples of 8 different neg. stocks and<br />

8 different slide stock being cross processed.<br />

Especially with the negative stocks the results vary<br />

dramatically among the different films. Some films<br />

lost sensitivity, others actually gained speed.<br />

In general they say that (still) color neg. films<br />

processed in E-6 produced slides that exhibited off<br />

white highlights, and overall casts varying from<br />

pink to blue, depending on the film, processing<br />

time and speed that the film was rated. In general<br />

it was advisable to push process to boost contrast.<br />

In general punchier, directional lighting was<br />

"better."<br />

The comments on push processing and hard light I<br />

believe come form the fact that most of the sample<br />

shots looked somewhat muddy. The normal,<br />

unmanipulate shot of the same young lady against<br />

a neutral gray background showed "good" normal<br />

contrast and tonal range, even though she was<br />

shot with a soft box and reflector for fill.<br />

Page 320


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

btw. The slide films processed in C-41 were<br />

generally contrasty with a warm shift.<br />

The article points out that for a more extreme look<br />

(no sample shots) use Infrared Ektachrome slide<br />

film processed in C-41.<br />

The new David Samuelson's "Hands-On" Manual for<br />

Cinematographers also has a good section on<br />

"custom processing." I won't quote from that<br />

excellent reference book since every m ember of<br />

this group should have their own copy by now ...<br />

<br />

... Mako<br />

Page 321


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Deep Focus<br />

Esteemed CMLers,<br />

I should know this, and probably once did ;<br />

The advent of color motion pictures marked a<br />

change in cinematographic style, away from deep<br />

focus and with a (seemingly ever) decrease in DoF<br />

in general. I routinely work with people who are<br />

more than comfortable shooting wide-open, all the<br />

time. But I digress. I was posed this question by a<br />

film historian - why the change when color was<br />

introduced, and I gave him a range of possible<br />

answers, all conjecture on my part. Does anyone<br />

know the real reason? Deep focus can, of course,<br />

be done in color (as we all know), and sitcoms are<br />

living proof that folks can blast away @ 5.6 and 8<br />

until the cows come home. So what happened?<br />

Color temp issues, slower stocks? Help.<br />

George "likes that f4 a lot" Nicholas<br />

Page 322


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I think you'll find that the move out of the studio to<br />

location shooting had more to do with this than the<br />

advent of color film. Look at the studio<br />

productions of the 50's/60's. Use of color, plenty<br />

of DoF. Recently I again saw Charlton Heston<br />

holding off the British with some help from Yul<br />

Brenner at the Battle of New Orleans. Shot in<br />

studio, swamp, fog, rockets flying, cannons going<br />

off...it was great....and sharp.<br />

I now yield to my more learned colleagues.<br />

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP<br />

I would submit the following equation as a partial<br />

answer: depth = budget.<br />

Eric Swenson<br />

Page 323


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

You left out that "wide open" on those older lenses<br />

was T2.3, T2.8, T4., T5.6, etc. The T1.3 and T1.4<br />

lenses came along much later.<br />

I agree that increased location shooting<br />

contributed to shallower depth.<br />

Doug Hart<br />

Well, the original 3-strip Technicolor had an EI of<br />

perhaps 10 (actually, that was the improved<br />

version). And the 3-strip camera couldn't take<br />

lenses wider than 50mm due to backfocus<br />

problems (this was before the invention of<br />

retrofocus optics).<br />

Then, when color neg. came along, Eastmancolor<br />

ECN-I (also called 5247) was either EI 10 or 16.<br />

The improved version hit EI 25, and 5251 was EI<br />

50. 5254 came out in 1968, and was EI 100 (a<br />

beautiful stock, much prettier to my eye than it's<br />

replacement, ECN-II 5247). It could push a stop or<br />

two. Haskell Wexler got some of the first batch of<br />

5254 for part of "Medium Cool" -- and considered<br />

Page 324


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

that stop an exciting gain.<br />

In 16mm color reversal, professionals went from<br />

Professional Kodachrome (a low-con Kodachrome I<br />

stock, designed for printing and also used in the<br />

40's as Technicolor Monopack) which was about EI<br />

10. Then Ektachrome Commercial (7255 was I<br />

believe the first iteration) came out, EI 25. It was<br />

replaced with 7252, which could be pushed to 50!<br />

Beautiful outdoors, and made great blowups... but<br />

horribly slow for naturalistic lighting!<br />

Obviously, all these limited depth of field, unless<br />

you used very serious lighting.<br />

Me, I'd love to shoot at f/5.6 with EI 12,500 stock<br />

in very low light! ;-)<br />

Jeff "push push push!" Kreines<br />

The lenses have gotten faster, would be my first<br />

guess. Imagine shooting when wide open was 2.8 (<br />

I intend never to shoot more open from a 2 again).<br />

Page 325


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

However I would think that is only a part of the<br />

picture ( hah hah funny pun).<br />

More light equals more light control apparatus,<br />

which equals more Space ( harder on locations) and<br />

more crew, and all this equals more money.<br />

Budgets are getting tighter ( for most of us), Stocks<br />

are getting faster with more "ability to see into<br />

shadows" so controlling the higher amounts of<br />

light is more time consuming and more expense.<br />

Actors don't want to be under Really hot/hard<br />

lights.<br />

I think it takes a very firm creative decision to go<br />

with "Deep Focus", and to fight for it. Perhaps also<br />

contributing is the freer access to gear, which gives<br />

rise to less technically schooled shooters ( I met<br />

someone who called themselves a D.P. even though<br />

they had never actually shot anything, just assisted<br />

on - not even shot - a few video shorts).<br />

Or as someone else succinctly put it "Deeper =<br />

More Expensive"<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Page 326


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jeff Kreines has given the technical answer -<br />

slooowww stocks, as well as the optics involved in<br />

3-strip cameras. Agreed. But if that was all, why<br />

wouldn't we return to deeeep focus as soon as the<br />

stocks got faster? Which they certainly have by<br />

now.<br />

So will anyone have a go at a slightly more<br />

aesthetic answer? To me, deep focus looks "right"<br />

only in B/W. Maybe it's what I've learnt to see. But<br />

is there something else? B/W often needs lighting<br />

to separate subjects as there's no colour to<br />

separate foreground from background. So wouldn't<br />

shallow DoF have helped here as well? Or would it<br />

have been too much. Or does shallow DoF in a<br />

colour subject add just the right degree of<br />

photographicity (well I think I know what I mean by<br />

that), whereas B/W film adds it by the lack of<br />

colour?<br />

Or is it just a matter of fashion and trend?<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Page 327


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

History and technology aside, I agree with Dominic<br />

that deep focus looks "Right" in B&W for one good<br />

reason: Soft focus in monochrome can turn a<br />

background into mud! You may as well shoot<br />

Ingrid Bergman in front of a sheet of seamless<br />

paper.<br />

Conversely, I think deep focus in color tends to<br />

have an equally negative effect. Since color is<br />

recorded with equal saturation no matter how far<br />

the subject is from the lens, a person wearing<br />

bright clothing, against a bright background will<br />

have an almost comic -book look. Very two<br />

dimensional. A shallow depth of field helps<br />

separate the main subject from the background,<br />

without the use of a lot of rim -lighting. It helps<br />

guide the viewer's eye to the m ost important<br />

element in the frame.<br />

Hopefully, The AC has been told which element<br />

that is, exactly.<br />

(See the thread about "What Dreams May Come"--<br />

Poor Devil)<br />

Page 328


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Joe "What shall it be, The Eyes or the Nose in<br />

focus?" Di Gennaro<br />

focusing is a creative tool as much as lighting and<br />

composition. it's possible that tv with its emphasis<br />

on close-ups has influenced the shallow depth of<br />

field.<br />

I happen to actually get into out of focus as much<br />

as into deep focus. "Lost Highway" had some very<br />

interesting shots where the camera would go out<br />

of focus at determined times for a striking effect. a<br />

film that I found quite beautiful to watch (which<br />

will probably bring groans from anyone reading<br />

this) was Andy Warhol's "poor little rich girl" where<br />

one entire reel (out of two reels) is out of focus but<br />

it captures that fleeting existence/experience of<br />

the character, and aside from that, it just looks<br />

beautiful.<br />

on the other hand one of my favorite films is "last<br />

year at Marienbad" where Sasha Gierny (spelling?)<br />

has incredibly sharp deep focus that expertly<br />

captures the rigidity of the enclosed society and<br />

Page 329


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the rigidity found in Alain Robbe Grillet novels, a<br />

rigidity of an objective reality that is actually flimsy<br />

and constantly changing before our very eyes.<br />

like everything else, visual styles come and go, but<br />

the only good visual style is the one that is so<br />

intricately tied to its material that it is essential to<br />

the piece and without it, it would not be complete.<br />

besides, I like those old super8 home cameras that<br />

have a fixed focus and f- stop.<br />

--for whatever its worth, octavio fenech – nyc<br />

As an aside to these current posts;<br />

On Ken Russells' film "The Boyfriend" the DoP<br />

David Watkin did go for Deep Focus on all shots<br />

and the standard stop of the day was in the realm<br />

of T8. If memory serves me right, they would have<br />

been shooting on 100ASA 5254, possible '47<br />

However the studio power house at the ABPC<br />

Page 330


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

studios at Elstree couldn't supply enough power for<br />

all the lights, so several 1000amp gennies had to<br />

be brought in.<br />

As a previous Post mentioned, the dearth of Deep<br />

Focus may have more than a passing relationship<br />

with today's budgets.<br />

Les "The brutes, the brutes, my spectrum for a<br />

brute" Parrott<br />

I agree with Dominic that B&W sometimes calls for<br />

deep focus. It can really work there. Part of it is<br />

also how we have learned to see in the last century.<br />

I think Deep Focus shots in color have to be<br />

carefully production-designed and lit. Color can<br />

be a huge distraction to a composition. You are no<br />

longer composing just by shapes and tones, but<br />

have to give weight to a really saturated color<br />

that's sitting in the corner of the frame.<br />

Page 331


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Therefore, I often see the problem with the<br />

background competing with the actor's close-up.<br />

I'd rather throw a complex background *slightly*<br />

out of focus (that can still be a t-5.6 in 35mm<br />

format) and let the actor's close-up "pop out" a<br />

little.<br />

Perhaps if films were not so cutty, then one could<br />

hold on a color, deep focus shot a little longer and<br />

let you study it - as one would study a<br />

photograph. Often times we're shooting images<br />

that are seen for 3-4 seconds max and need to<br />

distil the essence of that image so that it can be<br />

digested in that time. Shallow focus sometimes<br />

helps to guide the viewer's eye.<br />

Same goes for swing-shift.<br />

And your sets had better be flawless if you're<br />

shooting at t-8. :-)<br />

I just shot a roll of Agfa Scala 200 (B&W slides<br />

rated at 500, pushed one stop), and I was<br />

surprised to see how powerful the eyelights were.<br />

Nothing competed with the sparkles in the eyes.<br />

Never realized that until now.<br />

Page 332


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mark Doering-Powell<br />

Page 333


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Deserts & Backlight<br />

I have a scene in the desert to shoot with four<br />

women for a short film. I'm shooting this scene in<br />

one day. I feel that the most attractive light for<br />

them is to have them back-lit by the sun and fill<br />

the faces myself.<br />

My question is, If I block the scene so I'm able to<br />

shoot everybody with this ""back-lit"" look and just<br />

cheat the background, will it be too much of a<br />

cheat?<br />

Or will people watch this and accept the fact that<br />

the sun is always behind them?<br />

Thanks,<br />

Christopher C. Pearson<br />

I can't address all the issues you raise but I can tell<br />

you that at this time of year the sun most closely<br />

approximates dropping directly downward out of<br />

the sky.<br />

Page 334


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

During the winter months the sun drops at the<br />

greatest horizontal angle.<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

Nestor Almendros, in his book A Man with A<br />

Camera, states very clearly that he would routinely<br />

cheat close-ups so that all the people are backlit<br />

within a scene....<br />

So, it is done all the time but it doesn't necessarily<br />

mean that the story<br />

demands it, does it?<br />

Ted Hayash<br />

a few films to look at where they pulled this off<br />

successfully (just off the top of my head):<br />

Page 335


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

--The Natural (a lot of the baseball stuff)<br />

--some scenes in E.T.<br />

--And, I understand (haven't actually seen it yet)<br />

The Horse Whisperer (maybe it's a Redford thing).<br />

Seems like the way to do it is establish a big ol'<br />

wide shot with your main characters backlit, then<br />

do the coverage with pretty long lenses to throw<br />

the background totally out of focus.<br />

Phil<br />

Check it out, definitely a Redford thing, I think it<br />

did not go unnoticed, I can't say Robert Richarson's<br />

work was great, he does some much better things,<br />

(I think Redford put some pressure on him or<br />

something)<br />

Vasco Lucas Nunes<br />

Not if you're good at cheating .<br />

Page 336


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Hey, ""...everybody gets a backlight..."", it's a look.<br />

Go for it if you think it sits with your vision. If<br />

you're sensitive to the texture of the shots and<br />

things feel natural you should be on solid ground.<br />

I don't think it's possible to *cheat too much*<br />

these days. There seem to be so many budget<br />

restraints and money worries that I believe<br />

knowing how and when to cheat effectively is an<br />

important part of our skill set.<br />

Granted, it's not always the best way to do things.<br />

BUT, knowing how to cheat a turn-around when<br />

the chips are down is one of the things that<br />

separates the women from the girls.<br />

D.P.<br />

Conrad Hall once said that he disliked ""slick""<br />

photography because it was without flaws - which<br />

is not how he saw life. And I remember Caleb<br />

Deschanel once saying that in every shot there<br />

should be something a little out-of-control - I<br />

Page 337


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

guess he meant that some mistakes are what give<br />

life to a shot<br />

I have to agree with David.<br />

Thanks everybody for all the input, This has been a<br />

tremendous help.<br />

Christopher C. Pearson<br />

Conrad and Caleb are two of the slickest DPs<br />

around - perhaps Caleb a little more than Conrad<br />

but...If you want grit you have to hire a non-USA,<br />

or at least a New Yorker, DP...before you flame me<br />

I'm only half serious...<br />

When I was based in the theatre run by Peter<br />

Cheeseman (he of the Ayckbourne, Joseph trinity) if<br />

he was directing a show he would always leave a<br />

scene partially rehearsed. This put the actors on<br />

edge and kept them on their toes! It worked for a<br />

few nights at least...<br />

Page 338


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

When I was starting out I used to fiddle with the<br />

levels endlessly. Then a director said stop fiddling<br />

now or you'll take the life out of it. Took me aback<br />

but he made me see light in a different light again.<br />

Nowadays when I light I try not to take too many<br />

readings. However, when I operate I still try to do it<br />

perfectly and envy those operators who add that<br />

little edge to their framing - and they're mostly<br />

Russian, Czechs, Polish, Hungarian, English (not so<br />

much) and some South American operators.<br />

I've often thought of changing the GG markings a<br />

little off centre - maybe one day... It's funny how<br />

we all aspire for perfection when we start out but<br />

as we get closer to it we start to admire the not so<br />

perfect! If it hadn't been for Hollywood or Ridley<br />

Scott I would have *known* so many more women<br />

when I was younger! :-)<br />

I guess I dislike all backlit scenes for the same<br />

reason now. Just my two<br />

rupees...<br />

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting<br />

Cameraman<br />

Page 339


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Ahh yes, but it's been said, you need to know the<br />

rules before you can break them. Picasso comes to<br />

mind...<br />

Eric<br />

Page 340


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Director & DP’s relationship<br />

I was wondering, what is for you, the perfect<br />

Director/DoP relationship?<br />

I'm very curious.<br />

Kevin Demeo<br />

No matter how many do's and don’ts you draw up<br />

about the roles of DPs and Directors the only way<br />

you're going to get what you want is to stick up for<br />

it and be prepared to walk if necessary<br />

.<br />

I know it ain't easy but when a director says "time<br />

to put the promists in" that's the time to walk up to<br />

an actor and give some directions or shout<br />

"Action". Seriously, it's time to remind him gently<br />

who the DP is. The same with an Operator/director<br />

who decides your stop. Tell him the first time he<br />

does that that's your prerogative as a DP, if he<br />

wants to set the stop get a "yes, sir" man. I did a<br />

shoot recently where I was lighting and opping and<br />

Page 341


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the director wanted to ride the dolly *during* the<br />

takes. I did a couple of takes that way but I was<br />

bursting inside from holding back. In the end I just<br />

swallowed hard and at the risk of upsetting him I<br />

pulled him to one side and said I can't operate like<br />

that. He said OK and spent the rest of the shoot at<br />

HIS monitors. That's why we have vid assist - don't<br />

we? But I should've (with hindsight) told the<br />

director on the first take he can't ride the dolly.<br />

I think all the tacit set rules are there for a reason<br />

and have been arrived at thru years of trial and<br />

error - you break them at your peril. It may seem<br />

OK for an Op to set the stop but down the line<br />

there will be problems. Wasn't there some posts<br />

about Asian AC's taking the readings?<br />

Hmmm...now there's a practice full of pitholes<br />

waiting for DPs to fall into!<br />

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting<br />

Cameraman<br />

Page 342


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Throwing my .25 cents in (inflation, you know) - I<br />

completely disagree. As a director of photography<br />

our job is to photograph the project according to<br />

the director's vision. The director IS the boss. If<br />

he/she decides for promists in a scene... That's<br />

what's gonna happen. If I feel strongly against it –<br />

I will argue the point, but ultimately the director's<br />

word is final. It is the director's ass who's on the<br />

line much more so than ours. The typical<br />

moviegoer does not go to see Kaminski's latest<br />

work -- they go to see Spielberg's. 90% of the<br />

world has no idea that we even exist... In my work<br />

ethic (and I never consider myself a "yes" man, but<br />

I do always try to deliver what a director wants) the<br />

director is my boss. My job is to serve his/her<br />

vision of the film -- not my own agenda. My own<br />

agenda must fall under his.<br />

This is difficult in situations like my last feature<br />

where the director's vision was very contradictory<br />

to what I felt -- but we compromised.<br />

Ultimately he's happy and I'm happy with parts. It's<br />

a sacrifice, but a necessary one, I feel.<br />

Just some thoughts.<br />

Page 343


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jay Holben<br />

Jay,<br />

you couldn't be more right. OTOH I understand<br />

Shangara's frustration and there are definitely<br />

times when directors go to far- you're name is on<br />

the film as DP and you have to have the say in the<br />

photography. you're right its the film that matters.<br />

the public doesn’t know who we are or care. very<br />

true. but OTOH I know- and some respect (I repeat<br />

_some_) for my craft and role on the project has to<br />

be there.<br />

He may be saying I want the BPM filter - but your<br />

AC may have netted behind the lens already, may<br />

be using a soft zoom and not want to filtrate. I<br />

donno.<br />

If he wants to ride on the dolly my job is to clear a<br />

place for him quickly. If he wants to operate a shot,<br />

well _maybe_ my job is to set the eyepiece quickly<br />

and tell him I can fire the switch on his call. that’s<br />

never happened but I agree- within reason what he<br />

Page 344


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

wants is what has to happen. but if he wants to<br />

start in on my filter pack and my stop- then I need<br />

to talk to him alone and say "sir, please tell me<br />

what you want the shot to look like and let me get<br />

us there."<br />

I think everyone may be right here. We are there to<br />

make HIS film and do what he wants - but we're the<br />

photographer not him - and there is a point beyond<br />

which he cant encroach. I don’t know what that<br />

point is- but I’m sure I’m not putting any stop on<br />

the camera but mine.<br />

Caleb<br />

in the end of course you have to do what the<br />

director wants, but it's a drag. after doing<br />

freelance cinematography for a couple of years I’m<br />

really starting to think maybe I’m not fit for it.<br />

lately I’ve had to deal with some<br />

megalomaniacs and it has driven me crazy. my<br />

problem is not that they want to ride the dolly or<br />

Page 345


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

put a promist on the lens, but that they demand<br />

the most boring photography possible.<br />

my attitude is if he wants it he gets it. I set up the<br />

shot, I explain to him what it will look like on film,<br />

and I have him look through the viewfinder. that<br />

way no matter how bad the shot is, he has no one<br />

to blame but himself.<br />

I see my role to be more than just a technician, not<br />

just a guy that knows the film stock catalog<br />

numbers and how to work a lightmeter, but as a<br />

contributor to the final piece, a collaborator in the<br />

work.<br />

I’ve had the pleasure of working with some<br />

directors that trusted my sense of aesthetics and<br />

style and its commonly agreed by people who<br />

know my work that it's been the pieces that stand<br />

out in my reel. to me the ideal relationship<br />

between a cinematographer and a director is<br />

SemioticK<br />

Page 346


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I was in the position last week of having almost<br />

completed an entirely (personality) stress free<br />

three week documentary digi-beta shoot. The<br />

director had gone home a day early to keep certain<br />

appointments in London, and we only had a very<br />

short sequence to shoot in a factory in southern<br />

France.<br />

For the preceding weeks the director had not only<br />

let me get on with getting the picture required, he<br />

had never asked to look through the viewfinder,<br />

only at completed sequences, unless we were<br />

recreating and dramatising when I gave him a<br />

monitor to look at. This director is very<br />

experienced, and shoots only what he knows will<br />

be needed, and seemed to trust me completely<br />

despite this being our first job together.<br />

On the last day it was the producer in charge. This<br />

producer really wants to direct, and has shot a lot<br />

of (broadcast news) stuff of his own on DV. In the<br />

factory for the last shoot, he's watching the<br />

monitor, with a little lighting going on, suddenly<br />

its 'The light should be warmer....stop it<br />

down......tilt up half an inch, I don't like that<br />

Page 347


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

radiator.... look, just do it ok?' I found it very, very<br />

irritating, and the sound man gave me a rolled eye<br />

'here we go again' kind of a look. There was<br />

almost a scene, but then the sun came out, and I<br />

took the CTO's I hadn't wanted anyway off my<br />

lamps to get more light out to balance the inside<br />

and mountains outside. By the time we were ready<br />

to actually shoot it, the lamps were bare, and the<br />

sun had gone back in so the scene was back to<br />

where I had wanted it to be originally. The tilting<br />

up half an inch was also forgotten about, as the<br />

subject leaned down into his computer, then sat<br />

up, etc etc.<br />

Later, at the wrap dinner, after we had all shared a<br />

couple of bottles of wine, the producer was telling<br />

us that he had started as a student making<br />

anthropological films entirely by himself, and he<br />

felt he had a lot to learn about not being a one<br />

man band film maker. I chimed in with my 'Learn to<br />

let it go and trust the people you've hired at<br />

significant expense to do their specialist jobs .<br />

Respect them and respect your own judgement in<br />

hiring them.'<br />

It seemed to go down well. Time will tell.<br />

Page 348


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Chris Merry<br />

Well, certainly. I completely agree -- in a perfect<br />

world, or even a good percentage of the time we're<br />

hired by director's (and producers) who trust our<br />

aesthetic and ability and will then defer to our<br />

judgement -- that's the way it's supposed to look.<br />

However, just as when I was gaffing, many DP's<br />

made lamp, color and diffusion calls very<br />

specifically -- which was frustrating, made me a<br />

glorified electrician more than a gaffer -- there are<br />

director's I've worked with who make lens calls and<br />

filtration calls for what they're looking for. I've<br />

worked with director's who are DP's who will tell<br />

me a stop they're looking for in a particular<br />

scene... It's the way they communicate.<br />

Does that just make me a glorified operator? Or in<br />

the case of a recent commercial where the director<br />

wanted to operate a handheld shot -- I let him<br />

have it and I AC'd for him letting my first have a<br />

break... Whatever works.<br />

Page 349


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

In reality, if a director that I did not have a<br />

relationship with was making all the calls --<br />

lighting, stops, lenses, filtration, stock,<br />

movement...<br />

I'd probably question why I was there. I would<br />

certainly have a talk with him, but barring all else,<br />

I'd do what I was asked to do. But perhaps this<br />

stems from my directing experience as well...<br />

As a director, things are hard enough...<br />

If I felt a scene absolutely needed a 1/2 Warm<br />

ProMist -- I'd ask for it. I wouldn't want my DP to<br />

get offended or pissed off -- if he had a problem<br />

I'd want to hear it -- but ultimately, If I want that<br />

Mist... I better get that Mist... Ain't I a bastard that<br />

way? :)<br />

Jay Holben<br />

Page 350


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Something like Steven Poster has with his director<br />

friend Jeremy (whose second name I forget, hope<br />

I've got the first right!). He once described how<br />

they get on so well that they had to stage a fight in<br />

front of the crew while they were shooting Roswell<br />

to be taken seriously. Putting on my Mullen hat:<br />

Roswell, Director Jeremy Kagan, DP Steven Poster<br />

ASC, American Cinematographer Feb 1995!<br />

I've always thought that's how films should be<br />

made but too often people's insecurities get in the<br />

way and they create unnecessary tension or take it<br />

out on someone else and just create a bad stink on<br />

the set. Very unproductive.<br />

I've had the good fortune to work with some first<br />

class directors in the theatre but in film I've had<br />

just bad luck. They've been either totally new to the<br />

game (fine and grateful for a couple of gigs only<br />

then they want to prove themselves!) or just OK at<br />

their job and relying on me to carry them! Before I<br />

retire I would love to work with a director who<br />

knew his job, had a good sense of humour and was<br />

secure enough to change his thinking when<br />

something better was suggested. I've worked with<br />

one such director as Camera Op but never as a DP.<br />

Page 351


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting<br />

Cameraman<br />

In separate interviews both Sidney Pollack and<br />

Sidney Lumet pointed out that lenses are very<br />

much part of the Director's toolbox. While a<br />

Director could most certainly hire a strong DP and<br />

a strong Editor, completely defer to them and have<br />

a reasonable shot of coming away with a film that<br />

works as the Director expects, the odds are much<br />

higher if the Director understands the tools of<br />

those disciplines. Photography, and how to use it<br />

to communicate effectively to the audience is an<br />

essential skill to a Director, not merely the domain<br />

of the DP.<br />

Judith Weston teaches a workshop called "Acting<br />

for Directors" in which the Directors must function<br />

as Actors. She believes, quite rightfully, that in<br />

order for a Director to fully communicate with an<br />

Actor, they must understand and experience the<br />

process first hand. Perhaps a similar experience<br />

Page 352


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

should be requisite for DPs. Perhaps those of us<br />

who have never directed a dramatic project should<br />

do so in order to more fully understand the<br />

process and therefore how best to serve the needs<br />

of the both the Director and the film while on set.<br />

Michael Siegel<br />


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've directed, as well as shot, as well as gaffed,<br />

feature films and other stuff.<br />

One of the reasons I like shooting the best of all is<br />

that if the scene isn't working, if the dialogue isn't<br />

working, if it turns out the actor was great in the<br />

audition but is a blithering idiot on the set ...... it's<br />

not my problem! I can still make the dang thing<br />

look good! That's my job, and I can control it,<br />

and it's not that hard to do (usually) as long as I<br />

have the tools and the personnel to make it<br />

happen.<br />

Directing a feature film is one of the most stressful<br />

things a person can ever do. People have NO IDEA<br />

until they've actually done it themselves! (if they<br />

would, so many people wouldn't want to do it)<br />

Ultimately whether the film is any good at all rests<br />

on the director's shoulders, no matter who re-<br />

wrote the script, mis-produced it, cast a lead actor<br />

who was wrong for the part, or shoved a re-edit<br />

down the director's throat.<br />

Page 354


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

If it doesn't "work" it's for one reason: The director<br />

f***ed it up.<br />

But here's another thing about directing (which we<br />

all know): anyone can claim to do it. It takes<br />

absolutely no experience or expertise. You<br />

actually can fake it!<br />

And people who are directing usually get there for<br />

one reason: Because they can. That's all. Not<br />

because they passed any test, or showed any talent<br />

in particular, but simply because they've been able<br />

to get into the situation.<br />

And here we are, with all our experience and craft<br />

and technical expertise, trying to explain the most<br />

basic things to them sometimes.<br />

But other times, they actually do know what they're<br />

doing. I've worked with directors who could be<br />

excellent DP's if they chose to be. And if they want<br />

a 25mm, then who am I to argue, unless I think<br />

they're making a mistake? Why should I complain<br />

if they actually know their craft to that degree? I<br />

certainly know the craft to that degree when I'm<br />

directing -- I say what lens to use, so why<br />

shouldn't they?<br />

Page 355


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I guess it's like any relationship and that it all boils<br />

down to one thing - trust.<br />

And like any other kind of relationship, it's hard to<br />

find good ones! And when you do, they're worth<br />

hanging onto!<br />

Phil<br />

I was challenged on the last feature project I shot<br />

earlier this year by a director with a very specific<br />

idea of what he wanted. Several times in the past I<br />

have talked about this here.<br />

I was hired as director of photography of an<br />

independent film directed by a first time<br />

writer/director. I had a very hard time with many<br />

of the things he was asking me to do -- out of<br />

focus shots, "shakey cam," bumping the camera<br />

deliberately during a lock off establishing shot...<br />

He wanted a film that demonstrated the<br />

imperfections of people -- something that wasn't<br />

Page 356


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

perfect. Behind the scenes of this film were some<br />

extraordinarily powerful Hollywood players. People<br />

I have looked up to, admired and studied for many<br />

years -- and people from whom praise of my work<br />

was very important to me.<br />

I had a different ideal for the film, and being m ore<br />

experienced than the director (and also being on<br />

the same page with the producer) I fought hard for<br />

my ideal. I argued when he asked for "odd" things<br />

-- saying that it wasn't appropriate here.<br />

In the end, looking at the film -- I was wrong.<br />

Playing the film straight was wrong. Being more<br />

experienced then the director didn't help me. HE<br />

had the proper idea for the film. We've got to<br />

remember that even though we are "Director's" of<br />

photography – we really only are lighting<br />

cameramen.<br />

The DP title has evolved through political pressure<br />

(and respect for our abilities) over time. We're not<br />

involved in the development of the script, the<br />

shaping of the actor's, the orchestration of the<br />

score, or the editing -- all of which the director<br />

oversees and considerably shapes the film. We are<br />

Page 357


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

only ONE part of the film. Albeit a very IMPORTANT<br />

part -- but who are we to tell the director he's<br />

wrong? Especially if we don't have a pre-existing<br />

relationship with him and an understanding of how<br />

he works.<br />

What about director's like Ridley Scott or Spielberg<br />

who, as I understand, do ask for a 35 over here<br />

with the camera this high...<br />

And I'd WANT a director to give me his thoughts on<br />

how a scene should be lit -- what is he seeing? We<br />

many be looking at a situation COMPLETELY<br />

opposite. I'd rather tell him what I was thinking<br />

and make sure we both agree.<br />

If I light the scene and he looks at it two hours<br />

later... Not at all what he wanted, but we have no<br />

time -- so we shoot. Later on in editing – it<br />

doesn't quite work...<br />

How many times has that happened? If you have a<br />

complete synergy with a director -- then things are<br />

great, but how often does that happen. I know<br />

we've all worked with director's who didn't know<br />

what they were doing. They make big mistakes and<br />

Page 358


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

things turn out bad -- but where do we draw the<br />

line? Who are we to decide whether a director is<br />

right or not? If you want to make those decisions -<br />

- then direct yourself, in my humble opinion.<br />

The best world is when you and the director are<br />

working together to continually better each other's<br />

ideas and shape the film together -- but in the<br />

ideal, the director is there to direct everyone into<br />

their idea of the film.<br />

Theater is a writer's medium -- film is not.<br />

Just my thoughts - as always, take them with a<br />

grain of salt... :)<br />

Jay Holben<br />

> But would you say it in front of the crew, or talk<br />

to him privately before<br />

• hand?<br />

•<br />

Page 359


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Personally? The relationship between the DP and<br />

Director is too vital to the entire workings of a set<br />

to have a stupid argument or degrade the DP in<br />

front of the crew. But there is a very fine line.<br />

Directing is a very hard job.<br />

You are not only constantly bombarded with<br />

situation after situation that if you do not solve,<br />

the production will fall apart (that's your job), but<br />

you are constantly challenged. Challenged by<br />

actors trying to push you – trying to insert their<br />

own agenda -- challenged by a personality conflict<br />

between the make-up key and the 2nd AD that's<br />

slowing down the show...<br />

You don't need an outburst between the DP who is<br />

supposed to be your second in command, the<br />

liaison between you and the crew and you and the<br />

technical aspects of the film... I am a very handson<br />

director. I can't stand sitting by a friggin<br />

monitor, I am in there working with everyone.<br />

Taking a peak at the brush stroke the set painter is<br />

using, the lamp the decorator is putting on the<br />

table, the belt they're putting on the second actor<br />

in a scene, the quality of light and lens selection...<br />

Page 360


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

If I wanted something specific that happened to fall<br />

under the DP, I'd always talk with him one on one.<br />

I would never bellow out before a take starts --<br />

GIVE ME THE 1/2 WHITE PROMIST! That creates a<br />

conflict and undermines the DP... I would talk to<br />

him during the set-up and make it one on one. If<br />

we had a conflict (I would certainly hope that a<br />

filter would not destroy a working relationship) I<br />

would have to question how important it was to<br />

me. If I was deadset (again as a director) then I'd<br />

have to do what it took to make sure he did what I<br />

asked. A disagreement over a filter or operation of<br />

a shot is more often than not indication of many<br />

deeper things going on -- and perhaps, like<br />

Shangara said, it not a collaboration that should<br />

happen.<br />

On a recent commercial I did, the director wanted<br />

to operate a series of handheld shots. I quickly<br />

handed him the camera and stood right by him (as<br />

an AC for him) to make sure we were still both<br />

there working on the shot. It bothered me slightly,<br />

and I felt that the shots he did weren't quite what<br />

they could have been -- but in the end -- he was<br />

happy, he got what he wanted. I suggested<br />

Page 361


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

another angle while he was operating and he went<br />

for it -- that's the right working relationship.<br />

Later on, for the final shot of the spot he had a<br />

very specific move scheduled that due to time<br />

constraints we had to change. He asked for<br />

something different that wasn't quite as dramatic –<br />

a quick solution. I came up with a different idea<br />

that took a bit to sell him on, but in the end he saw<br />

where I was going and it was his call to use it.<br />

That's the way it should work.<br />

Damn... I'm really rambling about this one...<br />

Guess I got my blood pumping with this one. All in<br />

all -- everyone works differently. I'm a DP now<br />

because I'm a director. Meaning I have always felt<br />

to be a good director you need to understand and<br />

have a level of proficiency for each position on the<br />

set. I started as an actor, worked for quite a while<br />

to gain proficiency, then moved to being a<br />

technician... I found a passion as a DP, in equal<br />

competition as a director, so I've settled<br />

comfortably here for a while, honing this craft...<br />

This could account for my bias toward the<br />

Page 362


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

director's side -- but what if everyone felt that<br />

their idea was right?<br />

Bear with me for a second more –<br />

Working in theater, during my last year I had the<br />

opportunity to do two shows back to back as a<br />

Master Flyman. Both were five character shows,<br />

and both casts were filled with five extraordinarily<br />

talented actors, great scripts, great sets, great<br />

costumes, great lighting... One had a mediocre<br />

director, one had a great one. The first show was a<br />

demonstration of five shows in one.<br />

Each actor was doing his own thing (fantastically)<br />

but all of them weren't on the same page. They<br />

didn't have guidance. As a result, the show<br />

floundered.<br />

It lacked focus. The second show, was right on. A<br />

unified direction kept everyone on track and the<br />

difference the director made was considerable...<br />

All in all -- someone's got to keep an eye on the<br />

big picture. We're just one piece of a much larger<br />

puzzle, that if made right, is truly a sum larger<br />

than it's parts.<br />

Page 363


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jay Holben<br />

Remember: You can always add the letters "U.P."<br />

(under protest) next to your name on the slate for<br />

a scene you're shooting against your better<br />

judgement.<br />

-Gerry Williams<br />

Hmm, another webpage :-)<br />

My own 2 cents :-<br />

Ultimately the director is in charge, it's their film, if<br />

you don't like their way of working then don't work<br />

with them again, but do this job properly.<br />

I seem to get on best with directors who have a<br />

strong visual sense, they know what they want, and<br />

rely on me to get it for them, if I can push it further<br />

in that direction then great!. We push each other<br />

Page 364


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

further. I have no problem with directors who want<br />

specific lenses, lights etc., as long as they know<br />

why they want them :-) and not just because<br />

they're fashionable.<br />

I worked for 6 years with a well known stills<br />

photographer who directed commercials, he didn't<br />

light them and he rarely interfered, erm, suggested<br />

things :-). He knew that lighting for film was<br />

different to lighting for stills. On the other hand,<br />

he set the frame, his operator, and note that, HIS<br />

operator, knew what he wanted and framed the<br />

directors way.<br />

As has already been pointed out I find the worst<br />

kind of director the one who always plays safe, who<br />

says he wants to be dynamic/adventurous and then<br />

insists on the most bland images possible.<br />

Most important I want a director to respect that I<br />

know what it will look like on film, not what it<br />

looks like on the Video Assist, not what it looks<br />

like to the Eye, not what it looks like on Polaroid,<br />

but what it will look like after it's been shot on film<br />

and transferred to D1.<br />

Cheers<br />

Page 365


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Geoff<br />

I had the pleasure of working on a film as an<br />

Assistant with Director Sidney Lumet in the fall of<br />

1997. The has not been released and is called<br />

"Gloria" . Mr. Lumet made every single set - Lens,<br />

position and height. In addition where dolly should<br />

start and end and marks for the actor. I had a hard<br />

time keep up with his frantic but controlled pace.<br />

The DP was David Watkin which I think some<br />

members of the list know him personally. David<br />

never felt his toes were being stepped on because<br />

he came out of the British system of Lighting<br />

Cameraperson which made their relationship<br />

perfect.<br />

Once the shot was set by Sidney David would light<br />

the shot through the camera not questioning the<br />

purpose or particulars.<br />

Of course, Sidney Lumet has many years of<br />

experience so it was not necessary to question this<br />

Page 366


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and this also falls under the blanket of the British<br />

system as I understand it.<br />

As an Assistant it was a dream and a real workout.<br />

I knew exactly what was going because Sidney was<br />

exact with his decisions and never changed them!!<br />

So there's my 2 cents.<br />

Brian Fass<br />

>Remember: You can always add the letters "U.P."<br />

(under protest) next >to your name on the slate<br />

for a scene you're shooting against your better<br />

>judgement.<br />

Has anyone done this and lived to tell the tale? I<br />

mean as a DP and not as a matchstick seller! :-)<br />

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting<br />

Cameraman<br />

Page 367


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

There's a good tale of this from Arthur Penn (re<br />

Peverell Marley, ASC) in the old book "The Film<br />

Director as Superstar" by Joe Gelmis, circa 1971.<br />

Penn (new to film, from a TV background) was<br />

directing "The Left-Handed Gun" (1958?) and<br />

would ask for, say, a two-shot. Marley would<br />

swing his putter and say dismissively to his crew<br />

"He wants a two-shot. Give him a two-shot."<br />

Penn insisted on using an Arri as a second camera,<br />

which Marley disliked, and all his slates stated that<br />

the second camera was unlit. Back in those days,<br />

Jack Warner was watching dailies... Lots of the<br />

Arri footage was used...<br />

OK, it's not that good a story...<br />

Jeff "but I typed it" Kreines<br />

>Has anyone done this and lived to tell the tale? I<br />

mean as a DP and not >as a matchstick seller! :-)<br />

Page 368


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Unfortunately, I have had to resort to it on rare<br />

occasions. More often I would quietly have the<br />

Script Supervisor put a note into the script notes.<br />

I believe in giving credit where credit is due. :-)<br />

Mark<br />

> Has anyone done this and lived to tell the tale? I<br />

mean as a DP<br />

• and not as a matchstick seller! :-)<br />

A number of times, sometimes you don't work with<br />

that director again, sometimes you DO work for<br />

that producer again:-), sometimes you get a call<br />

from the director saying "ha! it worked", rarely,<br />

you get a call from the director saying "you were<br />

right"<br />

At the moment that tray of matches is looking very<br />

attractive :-)<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff<br />

Page 369


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

OK, Jay, let me try again (although Caleb has<br />

already beaten me to it).<br />

I don't think anyone will disagree that it's the<br />

director's film, though to be pedantic I always call<br />

it the writer's film, but if you are hired as a<br />

"DIRECTOR" of photography then that word must<br />

have some meaning, surely.<br />

There are the rare times when you are on the same<br />

wavelength as the director that when they say "time<br />

for the promist" or "let's do this hand held" you<br />

know exactly what he means because you have the<br />

same idea and then there's no objection - and<br />

you've talked about the look beforehand, anyway.<br />

The difference is in how they ask!<br />

The director only thinks he's the boss because you<br />

let him! I think you have equal amounts to loose.<br />

Your careers and your self respect. He may earn<br />

more but then I say he probably deserves it. But<br />

your ass is just as much on the line - probably<br />

Page 370


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

more so as when things go wrong YOU will be the<br />

most likely scapegoat!<br />

>what a director wants) the director is my boss.<br />

My job is to serve his/her >vision of the film -- not<br />

my own agenda. My own agenda must fall >under<br />

his.<br />

That's why I said you must be prepared to walk,<br />

meaning if your agendas differ -however, easier<br />

said then done. I have no problem with serving the<br />

director's vision, as a matter of fact I relish that,<br />

although it's much more satisfying to serve the<br />

writer's vision, but when a director says let's have a<br />

12k thru the window and a smidgen of fill here and<br />

highlight that over there and ...you get the picture.<br />

What do you do then?<br />

Who has the unnecessary agenda and counter<br />

productive at that?<br />

Because it's a very short step from saying "next<br />

setup, the 35, over there looking this way" to doing<br />

your job "badly" and then blaming you.<br />

Page 371


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Because, in my opinion, any director that rides the<br />

dolly during a shot or sets your stop for you is<br />

doing his job badly. And that can't be good for any<br />

film.<br />

If the director wants to ride a dolly during a<br />

rehearsal that's cool as long as he gives time for<br />

focus marks and for the Camera Op to rehears too.<br />

But during a take? Nah... I think any director worth<br />

their salt will turn people's creativity on and not<br />

depress it. There's nothing that turns people off<br />

then someone encroaching on their territory. And<br />

remember even the most humble spark is a<br />

creative.<br />

And who is this Speilberg guy I keep hearing<br />

about? Kaminski, Toland, Zsigmond, Storaro, yes,<br />

but who ever heard of Speilberg? - and a foreign<br />

sounding name if I ever heard one. Tell him he's<br />

got to change his name if he wants to make it in<br />

this biz!<br />

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting<br />

Cameraman<br />

Page 372


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

> Before I retire I would love to work with a<br />

director who knew his<br />

> job, had a good sense of humour and was secure<br />

enough to<br />

> change his thinking when something better was<br />

suggested.<br />

I thought I was the only one ;-)<br />

Its surprising how many times I work with directors<br />

who are complete ignorants about cinematic<br />

language.<br />

Most of the time they are very good at directing<br />

actors (and even that sometimes is questionable)<br />

and all they demand is to make a caption of the<br />

scene the actors perform.<br />

It has to be as simple as possible without any<br />

interference with the actors. So the actors are<br />

completely free and can at every moment decide<br />

to change completely the rhythm of their<br />

movements, change direction etc.<br />

Page 373


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

And don't try to even miss a take, even if the grip<br />

was not prepared to having to running talent<br />

instead of a walking one as during the rehearsal.<br />

But they don't use any film language, and they<br />

leave everything in the operator's hands.<br />

For my work it is very exiting because I have a lot<br />

of artistic input and I can propose a lot of shots to<br />

the director. But I am not sure it is always a good<br />

thing for the film.<br />

When I propose shots, I make them in function of<br />

my interpretation of the script and even after<br />

talking with the director about the scene, I don't<br />

have the same vision as the director who follows<br />

the project from beginning to end.<br />

Of course afterward the editors will cut the film<br />

into any rhythm provided we made different shots<br />

in a scene. But I think that the rhythm of a film<br />

starts in the preparation where the director makes<br />

his shot list and decide how every scene connects<br />

to another and how all the shots succeed one to<br />

another.<br />

Page 374


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

And as Michael pointed out: " While a Director<br />

could most certainly hire a strong DP and a strong<br />

Editor, completely defer to them and have a<br />

reasonable shot of coming away with a film that<br />

works as the Director expects, the odds are much<br />

higher if the Director understands the tools of<br />

those disciplines. Photography, and how to use it<br />

to communicate effectively to the audience is an<br />

essential skill to a Director, not merely the domain<br />

of the DP."<br />

But every film is for me a way of learning this very<br />

subtle language and I hope to assist a lot of<br />

directors for a very long time<br />

Chris Renson<br />

Page 375


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Enhancing Filters<br />

What's the deal with color enhancers? I have a<br />

Tiffen 4x4 and have used it a couple of times in<br />

16mm. Need to know more. Anybody use them?<br />

What's "them" anyway. Is that what makes<br />

commercials way punchier, that and cranked up<br />

transfer?<br />

Harry<br />

I've used both the Enhancer Filter and the 812.<br />

First off with the 812....it is more of a warming<br />

filter than an enhancer but is geared more to<br />

flattering the skin tones...especially for black<br />

people..highly recommend it.<br />

I used the 812 in combination with a soft f/x 3 on<br />

a music video I did for jazz guitarist Norman<br />

Brown. We were shooting in the mountain areas of<br />

the high desert two hours north of LA and got<br />

some great results. There was one scene where I<br />

was working with the artist performing next to a<br />

Page 376


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

cherry red 57' Chevy. And the reds that popped out<br />

from that car were unreal...I loved it.<br />

There were other scenes where he playing his<br />

guitar and it was made of deep warm wood tones<br />

and the metal on it was gold....couldn't have asked<br />

for a better combination of colors with the filter I<br />

was using. The stop loss is about a 1/3...but I<br />

didn't compensate for it as I wanted it to do it's<br />

"thing".<br />

Now the Enhancer is even more geared towards the<br />

heavy saturation of reds and oranges....with about<br />

a stop loss of 1/2 to 1.....and if you want to see<br />

colors pop..this is the one.....nice to use<br />

outside..which is what it is geared for.....I wish I<br />

could use it to shoot something out in New<br />

England during foliage season...apparently this is<br />

what this filter was designed for when it got<br />

created. I've also seen other peoples work with the<br />

Enhancer when they do shoots in the<br />

Caribbean...pretty nice stuff.<br />

And yes we should not forget the power of Telecine<br />

to "Enhance" the Enhancer.<br />

Luc Nicknair<br />

Page 377


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I used to use one a hell of a lot, I probably will<br />

again :-)<br />

They seem to give a much added punch to some of<br />

the colours, more so than you can get in TK.<br />

Also can give you a hell of a problem with sunburn,<br />

even with very dark skins that don't appear to<br />

burn.<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

I now use color enhancing all the time when<br />

shooting tape, often in 16 and sometimes in 35.<br />

Just did small add that had to look really punchy on<br />

16. The enhancer with 7245 really gives a rich and<br />

almost 35mm look under the right conditions.<br />

On previous shoot I did the same product shot with<br />

and without the enhancer to compare and the<br />

difference was obvious but they were able to crank<br />

it up some with the telecine but not getting quite<br />

the same.<br />

Page 378


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Beware of fire trucks. On a corporate shoot we had<br />

a stand up with a fire truck in the BG and the<br />

results were scary. The enhancer had to go for this<br />

shot.<br />

Daniel Villeneuve<br />

I assume that we are all talking about "red"<br />

enhancers when we speak of enhancers. (Unless<br />

they've come up with some others in the last<br />

year...)<br />

Is it possible to preview the effect by eye or is there<br />

some reason that doesn't work?<br />

I've done some selective lighting enhancement in<br />

the past, but I haven't played with the filters. If I<br />

want an oak cabinet in the background to really<br />

pop, I'll hit it with a small light with 1/2 CTO on it.<br />

I recently shot an interview against a painted blue<br />

sky+clouds backdrop. Hitting it with 1/2 blue<br />

really made it come alive.<br />

Art Adams<br />

Page 379


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Often didymium for red enhancement. Use often<br />

for foliage or for exaggerated reds. The majority of<br />

the red shift on flesh tones can be extracted in<br />

printing or telecine for "normal" fleshtones<br />

JDBelinski<br />

I've used Tiffen's enhancing filter many times,<br />

especially shooting fall foliage, matches igniting at<br />

high speed, the circus, and et cetera. It enhances<br />

red hues to an extremely high degree and can give<br />

flesh tones an unpleasant magenta cast. Care<br />

should be taken with pushing the reds too far if<br />

you're finishing on the telecine, of course.<br />

Steve<br />

Page 380


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I have attached to this document, a copy of an<br />

article of Photo Life Magazine about Didymium<br />

filters (enhancers). With this article you will<br />

understand a lot of things about the didymium.<br />

Document not included so as not to breach<br />

copyright<br />

A part from what everybody says from the<br />

enhancers, I always have one when I shoot with<br />

HMI's not to put on the camera but they are very<br />

good to use by hand to calibrate your HMI's.<br />

I had a shot of an Olympic skating girl that had to<br />

be lit with 4 HMI followspots. I was able to calibrate<br />

all of my followspots to the same color just by<br />

looking thru the enhancer. My enhancer worked<br />

better than my colormeter, since the colormeter<br />

wasn't able to see the difference between the HMI's<br />

(I own a Minolta colormeter IIIF), the enhancer did.<br />

Surprising but true, I had my gaffer put on some<br />

half-green, minus-green, CTO and CTB until all of<br />

the followspots where identical thru my enhancer<br />

(holding it in my hands).<br />

Serge Desrosiers<br />

Page 381


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Page 382


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Eyelights<br />

I'll be shooting my third low-budget feature in<br />

about two months (hopefully it'll actually get<br />

finished :-) It has an ensemble cast, and each<br />

character is in a different place emotionally and/or<br />

spiritually. For a couple of the characters, I'm<br />

playing around with eyelights and the subtle effect<br />

they have on the audience's perception of the<br />

characters.<br />

I'm hoping that some of you might share what<br />

films and/or paintings you think explore the<br />

different effects of eyelights in the most interesting<br />

ways. I learned a great deal from Alan Daviau's<br />

work on _Fearless_, and I've looked at a few<br />

paintings that have given me some ideas. But I<br />

thought I might draw on the venerable experience<br />

present on the list to possibly point me in a few<br />

directions I hadn't considered.<br />

I must shamefully admit that my art history<br />

knowledge isn't what it should be :-( So, if you<br />

reference artwork, please assume that I won't know<br />

the artist (well, I might...).<br />

Chris Ray<br />

Page 383


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

It's an interesting issue because eyelights often<br />

suggest the use of artificial lights. Some DP's pride<br />

themselves on never seeing the fill light reflected<br />

in the eyes, especially on day exteriors. Others<br />

work very hard at always getting that sparkle in the<br />

eyes.<br />

Since you mentioned "Fearless", you are also<br />

referring to the practice of putting a strip of light<br />

across the eyes (ala "Dracula") as opposed to just<br />

getting a point of light in the eyes.<br />

On a technical level, I find that eyelights are very<br />

useful in a very dark scene, like a shadowy moonlit<br />

one. When the face is extremely underexposed, the<br />

sparkle in the eyes can make the difference<br />

between seeing their expression and focusing on<br />

their face - or just having it fall off into murkiness.<br />

An eyelight can make the face seem less<br />

underexposed.<br />

I find that it's amazing that something as theatrical<br />

as a strip of light across the eyes can generally be<br />

accepted by the viewer if it's correct emotionally. I<br />

had a shot where a girl is hiding from her mother<br />

Page 384


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

behind a potted plant inside a dim living room. On<br />

the extreme ECU, I put a strip of light across the<br />

eyes (stealing from Daviau in "E.T." when Eliot is<br />

sitting on the lawn chair watching E.T. come out of<br />

the shed.) It worked very well.<br />

It sort of reminds of me of the old use of irises<br />

(soft black circular borders on close-ups in silent<br />

movies) - the shadows create a frame within the<br />

frame, emphasizing the eyes more.<br />

I've never found a really quick way of doing strips<br />

of light across the eye. On some lights, you can get<br />

away with black tape across the front of a snoot on<br />

the light. Usually I have to use a slit cut into a card<br />

positioned closer to the actor. Dedolights almost<br />

can give you that effect just by closing the barn<br />

doors down into a slit - I'm curious to try them<br />

with the projector lens and see if that's a quicker<br />

way of getting the slash across the eyes.<br />

Movies that have used that effect... Well, in<br />

"Jurassic Park", when the kid in the jeep at night<br />

(the T-Rex scene) crawls into the back seat to look<br />

out the window, he takes off his goggles and the<br />

camera dollies in - and opposite the key light is a<br />

strip of light on his shadowed eye. A similar<br />

lighting effect is in "Hamlet" when Claudius in<br />

praying in the chapel. I just saw "Lost Highway" and<br />

Page 385


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

a phone conversation is played with strips of light<br />

across the actresses mouth and eyes. In "Dick<br />

Tracy", when Beatty enters Madonna's dressing<br />

room and meets her, there's a hand-held light<br />

creating a strip across the eye on the shadow side<br />

of the face.<br />

David Mullen<br />

Actually, no, I'm not really interested in the strip<br />

across the eyes. In "Fearless" I was impressed by<br />

the placement of the actual glint in the eye itself.<br />

I recall one scene between Jeff Bridges and Isabella<br />

Rosselini in which the points of light in the eyes<br />

had a subtle effect on the perceived emotional<br />

states of the actors. If I remember correctly (it's<br />

been a while since<br />

I've seen it), the point of light in her eyes appeared<br />

to be right on the axis between the actors, so that<br />

she appeared to be intently focused on him. His<br />

eyelights, on the other hand, were reflected in the<br />

sides on the eyes, giving him a very distracted<br />

look. Basically, she seemed to be intently focused<br />

Page 386


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

on him, and he appeared to be focused on nothing<br />

(or at least on something not to be seen with the<br />

eyes).<br />

I came across a painting called "Christ and the<br />

Womain Taken in Adultery" from 1621 by an artist<br />

named Guercino. The light in the painting was of<br />

no interest, but I noticed that the artist had given<br />

Jesus (and only Jesus) a glint in the eye, giving a<br />

piercing stare which seemed to go right through<br />

the judge in the scene. More than simply placing it<br />

in the center of the eye, the artist put it toward the<br />

top center, giving the face a more authoritative<br />

presence.<br />

My interest is in films and paintings that enhance<br />

characters' emotional states through the placement<br />

and shape of the actual reflection on the eyeball.<br />

We're also discussing the effect that taking the<br />

light away in certain scenes will have.<br />

Chris Ray<br />

I've wondered how a round silver ball, like an Xmas<br />

tree ornament, would work as a small hit in the<br />

Page 387


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

eyes. You could mount it under the matte box or<br />

on a C-stand and let it just reflect stuff into the<br />

eyes... Of course, the highlight exposure might<br />

change over the course of the shot... but maybe<br />

that's a good thing...<br />

-Art Adams<br />

Daviau mentions the lessons he learned from<br />

shooting "Bugsy" in hard-light. He said that he<br />

used subtle shadows across the face to bring out<br />

the eyes; sometimes he darkened Jeff Bridge's<br />

forehead with a shadow from a flag. It borders on<br />

the theatrical, but it works.<br />

In terms of using a eyelight, check out James Wong<br />

Howe's work in "Sweet Smell of Success" - he lit<br />

Burt Lancaster with a hard top light that shadows<br />

his eyes and gave him a skull-like appearance,<br />

emphasized by his eyeglasses. I think he avoided<br />

an eyelight to make him more off-putting - or else<br />

the eyelight only ended up being reflected in his<br />

glasses and thus obscuring his eyes a little.<br />

Page 388


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Also, check out "Godfather II" - Willis varies the use<br />

of eyelights (combined with overhead soft-box<br />

lighting) so that you only see the eyes when he<br />

wants you to see them. And the first shot in "The<br />

Godfather" (the pull-back from the face) uses an<br />

eyelight to good effect.<br />

David Mullen<br />

Strips of light across the eyes<br />

The Dedo projector lens is great for this effect. Not<br />

only can you quickly shutter the slit to the size you<br />

want, you can also vary the focus of the beam<br />

edge. Very painterly. Lots of control. The projector<br />

lens make this so easy that it's hard to show<br />

restraint in using the effect. But we must!<br />

Tim Glass<br />

Check out Philippe Rousselot's work for subtle<br />

eyelighting in low key conditions - I think one of<br />

Page 389


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the secrets is using a circular source, which gives a<br />

natural rounded reflection in the eye. The converse<br />

is also true - a fluorescent strip or a ringlight can<br />

give an unnatural look where one is desired. I love<br />

what a soft, subtle eyelight above the camera does<br />

to skin and cheekbones, too.<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Eyelights are interesting. I think a lot of DP's who<br />

shoot a lot for television forget that an ECU on the<br />

big screen means the source for the eyelight is<br />

going to be very big and very obvious. People are<br />

used to square, round, and points, but it can be a<br />

great opportunity to insert a symbolic touch. Fire is<br />

cool, and if you really wanted to use fire try<br />

projected (or played back in a monitor) slightly<br />

slower so the flames have a great licking action.<br />

I've used Kino bulbs on C-stands to make a cross,<br />

vertical lines, horizontal lines, etc. I use 2 inch<br />

black paper tape right on the bulb to trim them<br />

down, and also to kill the light off the lens if<br />

they're out in front. I've worked with a DP who had<br />

Page 390


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

a simple large bowl fixture covered with 216<br />

diffusion and a 3200K bulb that he would move<br />

around by hand while looking through the<br />

viewfinder and then hold in place while a grip<br />

made it stay there (mounting it to camera, dolly, or<br />

on a stand). He never shot a close up without it.<br />

The Dedo's are a great light, but for the budget<br />

minded you can do almost anything with a Source<br />

Four ellipsoidal that the Dedo will do and the rental<br />

is much cheaper. They blade, they iris, they'll soft<br />

focus, and they're only 575 watts so you can stick<br />

em on those cheap household dimmers. I've used<br />

the blades hard for a bar of light right in both eyes,<br />

then use some Hampshire frost to soften it and<br />

even the light out (I could de-focus but I like the<br />

Hampshire), then dim it till it's just noticeable.<br />

Great for the dramatic tear scenes or whenever you<br />

want to pick up the eyes on a dark face.<br />

Panaruss<br />

Eyelights are interesting, indeed.<br />

Page 391


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Don't forget that many practical's on the set can<br />

become eyelights too.<br />

If the principal is sitting before a computer monitor<br />

or TV then the monitor itself makes a great<br />

eyelight -- same thing if they're reading a book or<br />

map, holding a notebook or clipboard, flashlight,<br />

and et cetera. They all make wonderful eyelights.<br />

So do those little battery-operated fluorescent's<br />

they sell at Home Depot.<br />

They also -- though I probably will regret revealing<br />

this (I've had lots of compliments on "the look") --<br />

make really good "dashboard" lights; that is, the<br />

light one uses to light the faces of the principals in<br />

the car (at night, of course) as if the light came<br />

from the dashboard. Six across (in three pairs of<br />

two) gives a good T2.5 at EI500.<br />

If you're getting dailies, remember to tell the<br />

lab/xfer house about the eyelights. I've had CUs<br />

come back timed too dark because the eyelights<br />

raised the printer lights. This is not an easy thing<br />

to explain when EVERYONE is watching the dailies.<br />

Steve.<br />

Page 392


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Explosion Proof Shooting<br />

Fancy a giggle?<br />

I need to put Stalex cameras on the ground floor of<br />

a 20 story building that will be demolished by<br />

explosives for a TV doc. We'll construct housings<br />

to protect the camera bodies. The cameras are<br />

rated to 100gs of shock in any axis, so its a simple<br />

matter of protecting them from 150,000 tons of<br />

concrete, cockroaches and asbestos. (contents of<br />

an average council block).<br />

We will also put a camera on the roof, protruding<br />

about 8 feet and pointing vertically down. (I did<br />

this shot a few years ago on video, can't wait for a<br />

500 FPS version)<br />

Another camera will be on a ledge toward the top<br />

or perhaps being winched up the side of the<br />

building as it crashes to the ground....<br />

As ever, it's the little details that need to be<br />

addressed and solved to improve the chances of<br />

success for these shots. I hope you can help.<br />

Page 393


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

To improve image quality we can choose not to use<br />

a protective port on the camera housing on the<br />

ground floor and write off the lens. The interior<br />

ground floor shot needs to be quite wide, 100<br />

degrees, so a 1 inch thick laminated filter will<br />

degrade the corners of the frame as well as require<br />

a much larger camera housing.<br />

The budget does not allow us to write off 3 other<br />

lenses, unless protecting them will cost more than<br />

the cost of a used prime. Other than a ceramic<br />

material, which has a dimpled surface and is a little<br />

pink, similar to a Tiffen Warm SFX 2, are there<br />

other flats that can be recommended?<br />

Stacking filters has been suggested. Any ideas for<br />

keeping dust off the lenses?<br />

Am I right in thinking that fine dust particles will<br />

be repelled if we positively charge the front<br />

element or port? Much larger particles of grit that<br />

will be deposited as a result of being propelled into<br />

the element could be removed with a powerful<br />

blast of gas. Is there a device that can do this?<br />

Lighting for the ground floor interior has presented<br />

a big challenge. The ground floor external walls are<br />

Page 394


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

knocked out leaving a floor, a ceiling and pillars.<br />

Daylight floods in - until the exterior walls are<br />

covered over with corrugated iron to contain blast<br />

debris. The interior space therefore is not<br />

conducive to a 500+ frame rate!<br />

The lighting ideas so far are:<br />

A) Flash bulbs from Megaflash in Ireland. They<br />

have a bulb with a 2 second duration. These can be<br />

rippled to produce a longer duration. Usually used<br />

for small areas, cars, close ups of projectiles et.<br />

This could be an expensive option.<br />

B) Remove ten sheets of corrugated iron from<br />

ground floor and replace with 6 mm polycarbonate.<br />

Light from 150 foot with a small thermonuclear<br />

explosion.( or 3 x 20k Arrisuns).However as the<br />

dust cloud develops in the first1/2 second after<br />

detonation, it will reduce the light level inside the<br />

ground floor. Also polycarbonate is £90 per 6x4<br />

sheet .<br />

C) Build disposable housings with a simple<br />

reflector for 10k bulbs. Place inside building,<br />

probably about 12 feet from pillars. Any ideas on<br />

how long the bulbs will last? What would be a good<br />

choice of bulb?<br />

Page 395


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Placing the bulb in a sealed polycarbonate tube<br />

may work. The advice from GE is to insulate the<br />

bulb from the floor to reduce vibration.<br />

D) Same as C but place lights in holes in<br />

corrugated iron. They would be much farther away<br />

from pillars so we would need many more. I Can't<br />

be more precise until next week when we have<br />

another recce. But they would be a further 20 feet<br />

away from the blast so may last a few seconds<br />

longer.<br />

E) Combination of the above. The unknown factor<br />

in this shot is of course dust. Will it obscure the<br />

collapsing pillars?<br />

UK Broadcasters are particularly touchy these days<br />

about filmmakers interfering with documentary<br />

subjects. So we have to shoot this for real. We<br />

cannot even cut-in a big close up of an exploding<br />

pillar, shot in another place. Pyrotechnics, for some<br />

added glitz, are out of the question too.<br />

We will be satisfied just to get the beginning of the<br />

explosions<br />

Page 396


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

After we have seen the site we will conduct tests at<br />

an explosive research establishment in a few<br />

weeks. The shoot is probably in March, so plenty of<br />

sleepless nights ahead.<br />

Any comments or ideas, no matter how off the wall<br />

will be appreciated.<br />

Mike Brennan<br />

>Any ideas for keeping dust off the lenses?<br />

you could blow compressed air towards the lens<br />

flats.<br />

As far as lighting, how about an array of china<br />

lanterns sporting 1000 watt bulbs? Obviously you<br />

won't have to worry about the lanterns catching on<br />

fire, and they're reasonably small so they won't<br />

obscure the view of the crumbling pillars. They are<br />

also quite bright and very cheap.<br />

Page 397


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Depending on how fast your lenses and film are<br />

and how large the interior is, the lanterns may<br />

provide enough light. Perhaps a combination of<br />

lanterns and external sources?<br />

ekiM.<br />

how about the Hydroflex mattebox with a small<br />

tank of air (like those emergency scuba outfits?).<br />

I've used this with a low angle, very dusty dirt road<br />

situation to good effect.<br />

Alan Caudillo<br />

We have two shots to deal with, one is a camera on<br />

the 20th floor, positioned on a pole about 8 from<br />

the parapet looking vertically down.<br />

Page 398


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

When I did this a few years ago the port became a<br />

little dusty 1/3 of the way down, with fine particles<br />

sticking to the filter, 2/3 of the way down the<br />

camera hit the rising cloud of dust caused by the<br />

lower 20 floors impacting the ground. This dust<br />

cloud was very dense and as the camera was<br />

moving at about 30 mph it was instantly smeared<br />

by larger particles of grit that would be probably<br />

impossible to remove with compressed air.<br />

An onboard system to clean the port for the first 3<br />

seconds would be useful. A can of dust off sounds<br />

ideal but I am worried that if the can became<br />

inverted the propellant would be expelled and<br />

therefore, ice over the port!<br />

Has anybody come across a pressurized dust off<br />

product that does not contain a propellant?<br />

The cameras on the ground floor can have a<br />

pressurized supply of air no problem.<br />

Has anyone tried this under very dusty conditions?<br />

The duration of the shot is hopefully 3 seconds at<br />

500 fps (1/2500th sec) on one camera and 1000<br />

Page 399


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

fps (1/5000 sec) on another for a close up, lighting<br />

budget permitting.<br />

Mike Brennan<br />

<br />

Falcon made a nozzle that was attached to a hose,<br />

that was in turn attached to the can. That may be<br />

what you need. The can can remain vertical and the<br />

nozzle moved around and positioned where you<br />

want.<br />

Auto racing ran into ( pun intended) a similar<br />

problem, and came up with a moving shield.<br />

Perhaps some sort of Disk, that spins and has the<br />

Shmutz ( a very technical term) removed?<br />

By the way what is a Stalex Camera?<br />

About not protecting the lens, it might be a<br />

possibility to damage the camera where the lens<br />

mounts to it?<br />

Page 400


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

D) Same as C but place lights in holes in<br />

corrugated iron. They would be much farther away<br />

from pillars so we would need many more.<br />

This sounds very exciting visually wise, especially<br />

when the dust first begins to rise.<br />

I guess in this case the old standby advice "TEST<br />

TEST TEST" doesn't apply.<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Thanks, that a good idea and cheaper than 10k<br />

bubbles and holders, (£180 for a 10k bulb and £40<br />

for holder) The concept of 60 to 100k of tungsten<br />

in the same area as detonating cord and explosives<br />

has still be addressed by the demolition team!<br />

(haven't told them yet....) Exposures ar e 1/2500th<br />

sec for the 500fps wide shot and 2500th sec for<br />

the close up.<br />

Page 401


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

We may have no option other than to use HMIs. A<br />

Arri X light head is about £3000. If we could<br />

protect them they would be my favored lamp.<br />

Has anybody used HMIs under strong blast<br />

conditions?<br />

Thanks<br />

Mike Brennan<br />

Sounds like fun...do you get to yell "Fire In The<br />

Hole!!!"<br />

For the dust...creating a very high pressure zone in<br />

front of the flats would be my choice. In my non-<br />

linear editor I have 5 12v cooling fans that move<br />

100 cuft/min each. If four of these were mounted<br />

in ports on a hard matte box that was sealed to the<br />

flat, each with its' intake side covered with<br />

fiberglass wool so you are not re-circulating dust,<br />

powered by a car battery.....it might do the trick.<br />

Page 402


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

For light...flo's/nook lights/bare bulbs mounted on<br />

the backside of the pillars and above the cut line of<br />

the explosives....they will put some light the next<br />

pillar in line, provide some shape to each explosion<br />

and by lighting the developing dust clouds behind<br />

each pillar, will create a lighter valued background,<br />

making it easier for the pillars to stand out.....for<br />

awhile at least.<br />

With whatever approach you choose, lighting the<br />

clouds of dust should be part of what you do.<br />

How about putting some cheap laser pointers in<br />

there.....attached to the pillars you can create a<br />

grid in the smoke that may give a nice visual of the<br />

collapse when the smoke has obscured everything<br />

else.<br />

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP<br />

Page 403


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Panavision has one of these devices. I saw it used<br />

to prevent water from splashing on the lens. It's a<br />

Plexiglas disk that spins, throwing the splashes<br />

outward. I'm not sure how well it prevents against<br />

dust though.<br />

ekiM.<br />

.25" clear polycarbonate plastic would be<br />

good for protection "if" it is well secured so that it<br />

doesn't implode into the lens. The unsupported<br />

area of the filter should be as small as possible to<br />

reduce the amount of pressure it has to withstand.<br />

The amount of distortion might be acceptable even<br />

with a wide lens. One problem is that it does<br />

attract and hold dust more than glass.<br />

There is laminated glass that is thinner than 1". But<br />

you should ask the manufacture if it will withstand<br />

the pressure.<br />

Can you mount used Nikon lenses? That<br />

would keep the cost down of a total loss. One trick<br />

the atom bomb photographers used was a 45<br />

Page 404


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

degree mirror to reflect the shot into the protected<br />

lens. Good only for longer lenses of course and<br />

only until the first pressure wave.<br />

>Any ideas for keeping dust off the lenses?<br />

Air nozzles is a good solution. Props dept. has<br />

done this for us. We had to use two wide fan<br />

shaped nozzles with a lot of pressure to keep the<br />

dust off. This one you can test out before hand.<br />

>Lighting for the ground floor interior has<br />

presented a big challenge.<br />

Others have suggested quartz halogen T3 bulbs<br />

which come in at least 1500 watts. This sounds like<br />

the least expensive way of doing it (the cost about<br />

$15 each here in the US). A sheet metal shop<br />

should be able to make some inexpensive<br />

reflectors. Good luck & have fun!<br />

Don Hayashi<br />

Page 405


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've seen one of these devices also, on the cover of<br />

Kevin Brownlow's biography of David Lean (A great<br />

read, BTW) On the subject.... Did I read correctly in<br />

a prior post that you are considering the use of<br />

HMI lights with a prism/drum camera at ultra High<br />

speeds? Am I wrong in thinking that this isn't<br />

possible, since your fps rate will far outstrip any<br />

kind of AC arc light, flicker free or otherwise?<br />

Have you discussed any options with your<br />

pyrotechnical folks about the possible use of<br />

something like magnesium flares as a lighting<br />

source? If they lay them down as part of the<br />

"charge", are you still subject to the<br />

admonishments of documentary purists. I'm not<br />

sure if I'm ready for that vow of chastity, myself.<br />

Hope your shoot is a real blast!<br />

Joe Di Gennaro<br />

Page 406


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

> Am I wrong in thinking that this isn't possible,<br />

since your fps rate<br />

> will far outstrip any kind of AC arc light, flicker<br />

free or otherwise?<br />

I have shot at 1/5000 sec shutter speed with my<br />

Arrisun 1.2 flicker free. There is occasionally some<br />

flicker on the edges of the beam though, but<br />

nothing to worry about.<br />

Magnesium is a brilliant idea but for its flickering<br />

nature and the large smoke cloud it produces. I<br />

recently tried to buy, from a defense supplier, the<br />

type of flare with a parachute that are dropped<br />

over battlefields. We needed it for a dramatization<br />

of a UFO landing. Very difficult to get hold of!<br />

Thanks<br />

Mike Brennan<br />

>Has anybody come across a pressurized dust off<br />

product that does not<br />

Page 407


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

contain a propellant?<br />

How about designing a rig that blows pressurized<br />

air across the lens with<br />

the air piped-in from a compressor off-site or next<br />

to the camera?<br />

Also, I recall seeing promo literature awhile back<br />

for HMI pars (4K-6K?)<br />

that were designed with both underwater housings<br />

and explosion housings.<br />

Wasn't it LTM? I remember thinking, 'gee how many<br />

calls do they get for the explosive proof housings?'<br />

Anybody familiar with these units?<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Mike, Et al.<br />

I'm gratified to hear of your success with flickerfree<br />

HMI lights and<br />

Page 408


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

prism/drum High speed. I'll be tempted to try it on<br />

my next Photosonics gig. I thought further about<br />

your needs for a somewhat expendable, powerful<br />

light source:<br />

Understanding that you might be in a very<br />

explosive environment (literally) Have you given<br />

any thought to using the guts of an old carbon arc<br />

light? I realize they normally would require an<br />

operator to strike them and keep the anode<br />

trimmed, but depending on the lead time between<br />

the final walk through the building, and the<br />

detonation, perhaps they could be "struck on the<br />

run" and left to burn until the boom!<br />

Joe Di Gennaro<br />

Now...here's the cool way to do it.<br />

From what I've seen watching doc's on<br />

demolitions...they blow the pillars in a sequence to<br />

Page 409


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

get the building falling in a pre-determined<br />

direction.<br />

What would it take to mount the camera on<br />

speedrails and get up enough speed to start rolling<br />

on the first pillar and back out of the building just<br />

ahead of each explosion, staying just t of the dust<br />

cloud.<br />

Anyone belong to an amateur rocket club?<br />

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP<br />

Hello all:<br />

I just did a shot yesterday of a carpet cleaning<br />

"wand" pulling past/under an extremely low<br />

mounted camera. This wand is around 150 degrees<br />

F and has 6 steam jets. I was very concerned about<br />

potential lens fog. I had the prop guy bring in an<br />

air compressor which is filtered for airbrush<br />

painting. These produce an oil-less/clean<br />

pressurized air which can be regulated. We rigged<br />

it to blow across an optical flat and it worked great!<br />

Page 410


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jeff Barklage<br />

Mike you said for a giggle !!<br />

Well from Justin's "Stupid ideas R us" file comes<br />

this one :)<br />

Get Kodak to let you have a length of safety base<br />

as long as your drop and 70 80mm wide. Work out<br />

a channel for this past the lens and a feed canister<br />

on one side. Either pull it past the lens with a<br />

motor or (better I think) attach the free end to an<br />

open umbrella. This would have the advantage<br />

that it would go quicker the further it has fallen<br />

also you could extend a bit of string to the top of<br />

the building so that the umbrella would not get<br />

stuck with the falling masonry ...<br />

No I'm not drunk I'm like this all the time.<br />

Justin<br />

Page 411


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I had thought of a more British way to create the<br />

same effect- a bungy rope!<br />

It could be pre tensioned across the ground floor<br />

and then its tether simply severed by the first<br />

explosion. It would fly across the ground floor, say<br />

30ft in perfect unison with the sequence of<br />

exploding pillars. The problems with moving the<br />

camera quickly are possible blurring of the picture<br />

and snagging on of the many detonation cords that<br />

stretch across the ground floor like a spiders web!<br />

Then there is the problem of extra areas to light.<br />

The light from the explosion is of course at an<br />

acceptable level but its duration is for about<br />

a1/10th second. A perfectly timed tracking shot<br />

full of one pillar exploding after another would<br />

work- on maybe the 5th take! A track on the<br />

outside of the building presents no hazards to the<br />

demolition team. Moving the camera would make<br />

the shot much more interesting and if timed<br />

correctly would make for a take of much longer<br />

Page 412


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

duration. When we recce. I'll keep an open mind<br />

about tracking...<br />

We are also considering a simple pulley<br />

arrangement with the camera at one end and a<br />

counterweight at the other, at the top of the<br />

building. The first explosion severs a tether at the<br />

camera end, releasing it to be pulled up the side of<br />

the building. Chaos would ensue when rising<br />

camera meets falling roof.<br />

To keep the camera shooting straight we need two<br />

cables and a elaborate pulley arrangement at the<br />

top. The director loves this idea I hope we have the<br />

budget to try it, although I'm not sure that the<br />

dynamics of the building falling down will be lost<br />

by the camera moving up.<br />

Thanks for all your input I appreciate it<br />

Mike Brennan<br />

Page 413


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Get the camera rig moving before the first<br />

explosion to get up to speed and even if the<br />

explosions catch up to the camera, that would be<br />

a nice shot.<br />

I have made a tube dolly with opposing concave<br />

wheels, the dolly platform was a high hat on a<br />

pancake. The tube was PVC and the dolly was<br />

mounted from the end of the track and locked onto<br />

the tube. If you attached your bungee to this, left<br />

the end of the track open with out a stop and at<br />

building opening, it might build up enough speed<br />

to launch itself clear of the building. Think of it as<br />

a slingshot.<br />

Also, if the dust from the explosion is going to<br />

limit what you can get, why not shoot on the floor<br />

above. The building collapse could be thought of<br />

as a more important theme than the explosions<br />

that started it.<br />

Glenn Suprenard Dir/DP<br />

Page 414


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Regarding lighting the demolition of the pillars in<br />

the boarded up ground floor. You might consider<br />

magnesium flares. They last for several minutes,<br />

they create a tremendous amount of light, and are<br />

disposable, so there is no great expense of<br />

trashing a lighting fixture.<br />

Of course you would have to do some tests to see<br />

just how much light they make. And also to see if<br />

the explosion shockwave will "blow out" the flare,<br />

but I doubt it would.<br />

Once magnesium is ignited, there is not much that<br />

will put it out. You will have to develop a remote<br />

method of lighting the flares.<br />

I've never done this, but it seems like a great way<br />

to make a tremendous amount of light, in a reliable<br />

manner, for relatively little money.<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

Page 415


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Didn't LTM or someone have a series of HMI pars<br />

that were both waterproof and explosion proof? I<br />

recall seeing literature of that nature several years<br />

ago. Anybody have experience with them?<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Hi Jim,<br />

In my early experience with LTM units, I think it<br />

may have been "explosion PRONE" that was the<br />

norm.<br />

Jerry (speaking for myself, as usual) Wolfe<br />

I can't help feeling that we are all referring to HMIs<br />

that are sufficiently sealed as to be 'intrinsically<br />

safe' i.e. they won't cause an explosion in an<br />

explosive atmosphere. I'm not sure _any_ lamp<br />

would survive a direct hit...<br />

Page 416


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

One small point. I seem to remember from filming<br />

in a quarry that all the force should be held within<br />

the object being blown up. So a well controlled<br />

explosion is rather unspectacular a all you see is<br />

the rock face slowly separating from the rest of the<br />

quarry. Still, I'm glad that OpTex doesn't have<br />

high-speed cameras, I think I'll give this one a<br />

miss! :-)<br />

Brian Rose<br />

> In my early experience with LTM units, I think it<br />

may have been<br />

>"explosion PRONE" that was the norm.<br />

YeeeOoouch! Yeah I recall working with the smoke<br />

and sparks of the early HMI's as well as those huge,<br />

heavy ballast’s. Amazing how much more durable<br />

and lighter HMI's have become in recent years.<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Page 417


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

>And also to see if the<br />

explosion shockwave will "blow out" the flare, but I<br />

doubt it would.<<br />

Magnesium creates its own oxygen when ignited. It<br />

burns fully submerged in water.<br />

As for flicker- I’ve not noticed this. it burns very<br />

white, towards the blue end if I recall rightly.<br />

Caleb, New Orleans based, has shot by 'Flambé'<br />

during Mardi Gras<br />

Has anyone used, or shot with magnesium flares?<br />

What colour temp are they?<br />

Page 418


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

In the good old wild west they are probably<br />

available at 7 Eleven, but in the UK, more difficult<br />

to buy.<br />

Any suggestions for suppliers?<br />

If we can get hold of them we'll try them on our<br />

test day.<br />

Mike try anything once Brennan<br />

><br />

I think someone needs to explain the misnomer<br />

"explosion-proof".<br />

The term "explosion-proof" as used with lighting<br />

units means that the units are sealed in such a way<br />

as to not CAUSE explosions in a dusty or volatile<br />

atmosphere. It DOES NOT mean that they will<br />

Page 419


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

SURVIVE explosions, although they may have a<br />

better chance of survival than non-explosion proof<br />

lights, because of their housings.<br />

As for the current issue of filming a building<br />

demolition, I would first talk to the demolition<br />

team themselves. Most of these outfits regularly<br />

film or tape their work, partly for the publicity and<br />

partly to study the blast process itself. They may<br />

have plans to record the event themselves, or at<br />

least have experience with recording past building<br />

removals.<br />

Doug Hart<br />

Another possible source of magnesium flares is to<br />

contact a fireworks manufacturing or aerial display<br />

group. If they can not provide the flares and the<br />

expertise of how to remotely light them, I'll bet<br />

they would know who to call.<br />

Page 420


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I found several fireworks manufacturers and aerial<br />

display companies with an internet search. Seems<br />

worth a try.<br />

And by the way, I'm pretty sure I am not the only<br />

one here that wants to hear how this one turns out!<br />

Besides the difficulty of lighting the shot, I want to<br />

know how you are going to protect the camera<br />

from the thousands of tons of building that are<br />

going to fall on it.<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

One of the leading manufacturers of distress flares<br />

is Pains Wessex in UK<br />

they're at www.painswessex.com/<br />

After speaking with them I'm too sure that they are<br />

an option for my<br />

demolition shoot. They produce a lot of smoke and<br />

they burn at 2000 Centigrade.<br />

Page 421


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

They are set off by first twisting a cap and then<br />

striking it firmly, so<br />

setting them off by remote control is a problem.<br />

The brightest burns for 40 seconds. We would have<br />

to confine the smoke in the building and away<br />

from our shot. The demolition company do not<br />

want a smoking building just prior to demolition.<br />

Doesn't look good on their showreel!<br />

They have put me in touch with a ex employee who<br />

makes fireworks and who is willing to make a one<br />

off that could be electrically ignited.<br />

How will we protect the camera? Basically, there<br />

will be a precision built steel case around each<br />

camera made of 1/2 inch steel. This will be lined<br />

with 1 inch of very high density foam, (not much<br />

foam I know but the Stalex cameras can take 100gs<br />

whilst shooting) This will form the "new" body of<br />

the camera.<br />

We will then protect these bodies against varying<br />

hazards.<br />

For instance, the cameras on the ground floor will<br />

have to withstand the impact of the weight of the<br />

Page 422


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

falling concrete, followed by the build up of<br />

pressure caused by the weight of the 20 floors<br />

above "settling" onto the debris pile. We can<br />

calculate the pressure with some basic arithmetic.<br />

If the building weight is about 150,000 tons and<br />

the debris pile has a footprint of about 100 square<br />

feet then on average the weight on any one square<br />

foot is 15 tons.<br />

To accommodate this the cameras on the ground<br />

floor will either have another steel box around<br />

them, or an arrangement of concrete slabs forming<br />

a cubby hole or both! We will also weaken the floor<br />

to create a survival space underneath the camera.<br />

The outer case will be about about 30 x 30 x 30<br />

inches and constructed of 1 inch thick flame cut<br />

steel plate. This box will take a direct hit from the<br />

pointed end a 500 kilo concrete slab, travelling at<br />

40 mph.<br />

At least that's what my engineer says....<br />

The cameras that are on the roof, travelling down<br />

with the building need to be cushioned from their<br />

impact, of 32 mph, with the debris pile. They will<br />

Page 423


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

be housed in one of the 1/2 inch thick steel boxes<br />

lined with foam. On the<br />

outside of this box we will secure a energy<br />

absorbing material that is lightweight and cheap.<br />

Materials that we have been investigating are<br />

aluminum honeycomb, as used in the auto industry<br />

(expensive), air tight plastic bottles, as used by<br />

paragliders (effective but bulky), rubber tyres<br />

(springy- the camera may end up 2 blocks away!),<br />

high density foam, formed into wire mesh box<br />

(effective but expensive). The last/first time I did<br />

this shot the video equipment was little damaged<br />

and we constructed the box without any impact<br />

absorbing material on the outside. The box ended<br />

up on the top of the debris pile, so we just walked<br />

up and hauled it away!<br />

I hope we have as much luck on this shoot<br />

This weeks "in" list<br />

Flash bulbs from Megaflash in Ireland<br />

www.meggaflash.com<br />

1000w bulbs from DIY shops for £1.20 each<br />

Compressed air<br />

Unbreakable Polycarbonate<br />

Page 424


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Honeycomb aluminum<br />

Cost/performance ratio of plate steel<br />

This weeks "out" list<br />

Exec Producer, who won't let me near the<br />

demolition team just yet (thinks I'll frighten them<br />

off-Ha)<br />

Unworkable polycarbonate<br />

1000w bulbs from DIY shops that have nickel<br />

contacts that are impossible to solder<br />

Cost of puppeteer on shoot day to manipulate<br />

cables and strings to set off compressed air, flash<br />

bulbs, roll cameras winch cameras, close hatches<br />

ect etc<br />

Cost/performance ratio of physiotherapy.<br />

Cost of sniffer dogs ...<br />

Mike Brennan<br />

Page 425


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Fluorescent Lights<br />

I'm sorry if this has been covered before, but I've<br />

searched the web site as well as the ASC manual,<br />

and I'm still stumped.<br />

I will be shooting on location this weekend using<br />

uncorrected fluorescent's<br />

as the only source. The bulbs are "34 EnergySaver<br />

Cool", manufacturer unknown. I'm assuming that<br />

this means Cool White, which I further assume to<br />

be a color temperature of about 4150K.<br />

Questions:<br />

• Are my assumptions valid?<br />

•<br />

- What is the correct filtration on the camera to<br />

properly balance to tungsten stock? (I assume I'll<br />

need a MinusGreen and some fractional 85, but<br />

what fraction?)<br />

• What will be the effect of this filtration on<br />

the EI?<br />

Page 426


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Thanks in advance for your help,<br />

Chris "OK, so I'm still new at this" Freilich<br />

I will be shooting on location this weekend using<br />

uncorrected fluores cent's<br />

as the only source. The bulbs are "34 EnergySaver<br />

Cool", manufacturer unknown. I'm assuming that<br />

this means Cool White, which I further assume to<br />

be a color temperature of about 4150K.<br />

Assume nothing with these things. I proposed the<br />

same question about 3 weeks ago to the CML and<br />

got fantastic results. (Thank you all!!!). The best<br />

advice I received was to use a color meter and not<br />

to guess. Cool whites vary in Kelvin and in green<br />

value depending on the brand.<br />

This may not be good advice, but what I did was<br />

bought two cases of<br />

fluorescent's and then returned them after I was<br />

finished shooting. This sounds cheep, but I was<br />

shooting a no-budget film. This way all of the flo's<br />

Page 427


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I was using where consistent with each other. (not<br />

to mention that older tubes also change color).<br />

My stuff came out great! I hope you have as good<br />

luck as I did.<br />

Christopher C. Pearson<br />

There has been lots of advice about this already.<br />

But since you are still<br />

worried I will jump in:<br />

1. Don't 'assume' on the color temp. Rent or<br />

borrow a color meter and know for sure...be sure<br />

to measure on the color temp *and the<br />

magenta/green scale.*<br />

Used Color Meter IIs can be found cheaply<br />

sometimes as the 3 is out now. I bought a backup<br />

II for $200 last year.<br />

2. If the fluoro tubes are all the same you are cool.<br />

Take some of those tubes and put them into<br />

Page 428


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Molescent or other home-made fluoro fixtures as<br />

a key or fill source. You know they'll match even<br />

without a color meter!<br />

3. And/or, having established what the color<br />

output of the tubes is, make up a gel package for<br />

small HMIs (like 1200 Pars or maybe jokers) which<br />

will match.<br />

You can vary the color temp for an effect but make<br />

sure the magenta-green range matches. I predict<br />

+1/2 and +1/4 Plusgreen and 1/2 CTO will give<br />

you a close match--your HMI may vary! Gelling<br />

small tungsten lights up with blue and +green is<br />

an exercise in frustration.<br />

I don't remember if you said that your location has<br />

windows. Bear in mind that if you have uncorrected<br />

daylight against fluoros which you are correcting,<br />

the daylight will tend to go magenta. In video<br />

transfer this can usually be fixed but you may not<br />

have that option. Of course you can gel the<br />

windows or draw curtains, etc.<br />

4. I'd strongly suggest shooting 7246. Daylight<br />

balance puts you closer to the output of the fluoros<br />

than tungsten stock and '46 looks at least as good<br />

as '74 while being slightly faster.<br />

Page 429


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

5. I have shot under fluorescent's without a filter<br />

on the camera for years with great results. Why add<br />

glass and take away stop when you c an correct it in<br />

transfer with much greater precision? In print your<br />

correction may leave some very slight evidence of<br />

the fluoro environment but that may not be a bad<br />

thing.<br />

6. As I have been there myself I will offer my<br />

unsolicited opinion that nothing is more typical of<br />

an inexperienced or insecure DP than being TOO<br />

CAREFUL. I don't mean you should be cavalier<br />

about what you're doing, but that you should not<br />

let worries about HOW to do something get in the<br />

way of thinking about WHAT you want to<br />

accomplish visually.<br />

It's important to realize that even in a case like<br />

this, rendering a perfectly balanced and neutral<br />

rendition of the situation is not the only way to go.<br />

Sure it's the most obvious thing to do---but do<br />

you always make the obvious choice?<br />

Technical knowledge is wonderful to have but I<br />

have known people who could quote the ASC<br />

manual from memory yet couldn't do an interesting<br />

Page 430


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

shot or contribute an original idea to save their<br />

lives.<br />

Have you thought about what the scene might look<br />

like if it were green?<br />

Vittorio Storaro has done this in 'The Last Emperor'<br />

and 'One From the Heart'--and he's no slouch. Or,<br />

if it's a night scene, what if the fluoros were off<br />

except maybe a few 'emergency' tubes in selected<br />

areas (for these you could use Optima 32s o r Warm<br />

White Deluxe) and you could use tungsten desk<br />

lamps for practical's and tungsten all the way?<br />

(Warm White Deluxe is a cheap, easily available<br />

tube which is about 3000K with only a tiny bit of<br />

green-- John Alcott used to use them.)<br />

However you end up going, stay loose and have<br />

fun--you'll do fine!<br />

AT<br />

Page 431


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

On an upcoming film we intend to use fluorescent's<br />

as part of the set design. To avoid the high cost of<br />

Kino tubes and ballast’s, we're going to go for a<br />

commercially available tube with a high CRI, and a<br />

colour temp of either 5500 or 7500. We intend to<br />

fit these using off the shelf high frequency<br />

electronic ballast’s(using a frequency of 120kHz)<br />

and my question is this: are we ok to shoot speed<br />

changes in shot, i.e. with 435, without danger of<br />

flicker? Are the commercially available ballast’s OK,<br />

or are the Kino ballast’s special in some way, e.g.<br />

squarewave rather than sinewave?<br />

Again I intend to shoot a flicker test but would<br />

appreciate any comments.<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Chris my recollection from the research I did a few<br />

years ago is that the significant difference between<br />

the ballast’s that Kino uses and commercially<br />

available high freq. ballast’s is that the Kinos<br />

Page 432


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

overdrive the tubes, e.g. pushing approx. 900<br />

milliamps through a four foot tube. This,<br />

incidentally will change the color spectrum output<br />

of the tube, notably adding a slightly stronger<br />

green spike from the more excited mercury vapour<br />

in the tube...but getting back to the issue, I do not<br />

believe that IN PRINCIPLE the flicker characteristics<br />

will differ between the commercial high freq.<br />

ballast’s and the Kinos. This is a guess based on<br />

recollections and conversations with ballast<br />

manufacturers...PLEASE TEST!!! ...and let us know<br />

what you found. I would suggest a test with three<br />

cards in frame, one lit with a tungsten light, one<br />

with a Kino, and one with a commercial electronic<br />

ballast. The tungsten - lit card will control for any<br />

anomalies caused by the camera.<br />

If you get test fixtures from Cirro-light in London,<br />

please give my regards to David Morphy. He may<br />

even lend a fixture for the test...(one can hope!)<br />

Mark<br />

Page 433


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Also - in regard to the Kino ballast’s - they cycle at<br />

25,000 Hz - which makes them "flicker free" at any<br />

speed. I'm not sure that a 120 cycle will be safe for<br />

ramping - depending on what speed you choose.<br />

Since the gas will discharge at twice the frequency<br />

- 120 cycle will give you 240 "flickers" per second.<br />

The rule of thumb seems to be a "shutter speed" of<br />

not less than your Hz cycle - so as long as you stay<br />

at 1/120 of a second or faster you *should* be<br />

fine. -- Also keep in mind the decay time for the<br />

phosphors against the tube might make things<br />

dangerous at anything other than 180 degree<br />

shutter.<br />

This would mean that you really couldn't go any<br />

faster than 60fps at 180...but again - as is<br />

preached over and over - test, my good man, test.<br />

Jay Holben<br />

My experience with the commercial ballast’s is that<br />

you can shoot any speed without flicker. I've shot<br />

many different non-window fps with no flicker.<br />

Page 434


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

However, I've never ramped with them but I would<br />

think you could do it. Of course, do a test with<br />

them. I have heard that the potential for flicker<br />

exists with the commercial ballast’s when they are<br />

dimmed. Best of luck and I hope this is helpful.<br />

Regards,<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Jay, I think you misread the posting, the ballast I<br />

checked out runs at 120,000 Hz. Should be flicker<br />

free at that speed. But I will test - Mark described<br />

exactly what I had in mind - and report back.<br />

The Kino tubes have a high CRI, about 95, and of<br />

course everything offered up as 'film equipment' is<br />

more expensive; the ballast’s are nicely packaged<br />

and are dimmable, and the lighting fixtures are<br />

well thought out.<br />

That's what you pay for, I guess. On an associated<br />

note, I saw some fixtures at the TV show in London<br />

Page 435


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

by a company called Videssence, which were very<br />

bright for small size and power. They had some<br />

deep egg crate accessories which made the soft<br />

light much more directional at the cost of a stop<br />

or so, but the tubes they used were of looped<br />

construction, like a U shape, and thinner than Kino<br />

tubes. Samuelson Lighting in London have some,<br />

although not on the hire list yet, and they look<br />

well worth checking out, particularly for location<br />

lighting.<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

There's also a German company - High Lux that<br />

makes the same thing – although not quite<br />

perfected. They go by the principal that a<br />

fluorescent is only as bright as it's surface area -<br />

so a 2' "U" shaped lamp has the same brightness as<br />

a 4' tube in half the space. Add a second "U" to<br />

that and you have the output of an 8' tube in a 2'<br />

space... They get some great output from the<br />

fixtures, but they still haven't quite gotten the<br />

spectrum right. Ah well...<br />

Page 436


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Back to the drawing board...<br />

Jay Holben<br />

Regarding output, surface area is only part of the<br />

equation...current is another part, and one reason<br />

for using larger diam. tubes is to stop the mercury<br />

in the tube from getting too hot which reduces<br />

efficiency and shifts color temp.<br />

Most of the compact fluorescent lamps out there<br />

are not really good CRI yet...and boosting them<br />

(overdriving them) only exacerbates the color<br />

problems. There is a rumor about of an upcoming<br />

very high CRI compact fluorescent lamp made<br />

under exclusive contract to a company that<br />

provides fluoro stuff to our industry...more to<br />

follow.<br />

Mark<br />

Page 437


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Page 438


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Focusing<br />

You've probably already heard this advice Vis a Vis<br />

focusing, focus marks ...<br />

* The only focus reference that is worth anything is<br />

one that doesn't move.<br />

* Ninety percent of the time when your focus goes<br />

soft it's because you are focused too close. In other<br />

words if the operator says you are soft, best bet is<br />

to ease the focus back.<br />

* If you get "surprised" by an actor leaning in, such<br />

as when a person leans forward to get up from a<br />

seated position, the focus adjustment is invariable<br />

one and a half feet.<br />

* There are definitely times now-a-days when you<br />

can pull focus off a monitor, especially long lenses<br />

wide open. Useful for tight inserts (following a pen<br />

across a page), swing/shift lens shots,<br />

snorkel/borescope shots. It doesn't work if the<br />

camera zooms and you are on a dolly or jib<br />

arm/remote head, because you will not be able to<br />

interpret the video size change as being a push in<br />

(focus change) or a zoom in (no focus change).<br />

Page 439


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

* Focus as seen on video (video dailies!) might look<br />

OK but might not be good enough for the big<br />

screen. On the other hand, a shot that looks<br />

slightly soft with projected dailies might be<br />

perfectly adequate for video.<br />

* There are times when the operator must pull his<br />

own focus. A human's 3D vision peters out after<br />

about 300 yards. With extremely long lenses<br />

(1,000mm) past 300 yards you cannot reliable<br />

distinguish where your target is in relationship to<br />

possible focus marks. You might if you have a very<br />

uncluttered vista. But if you have say a horsemen<br />

riding towards you among a bunch of brush it's<br />

almost impossible. btw. you have about 70' depth<br />

of field with a 1,000mm at 5.6 focused at 900'.<br />

* You should know the distance between your o ut<br />

stretched finger tips, and half of that, etc. Finger<br />

tip distance is close to your height.<br />

* Always guess the distance before measuring it.<br />

* I like to use a retractable metal tape measure for<br />

close in work and to have handy for measuring<br />

distance refer ences in the set, i.e. tables, linoleum<br />

squares, rugs, etc. I use a small 3/4" by 12 or 16'<br />

metal tape measure. People with larger hands don't<br />

mind using a 1" by 25."<br />

Page 440


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

* For very close up work, know the distance from<br />

the film plane to the end of the lens or matte box.<br />

Judge distance from the front of the lens/matte<br />

box to the subject and add the known distance<br />

back to the film plane.<br />

* Don't clutter your lens with too many marks.<br />

You'll just confuse yourself.<br />

* If you are doing a lot of long lens work in a set<br />

area (sports arena) draw a little diagram with<br />

distances indicated.<br />

* Keep in mind that your focus distance is an arc<br />

around the camera, not a line perpendicular to the<br />

camera.<br />

* Don't make too much of an issue about focus so<br />

that everyone starts to become hyper aware of it.<br />

They that count will start becoming paranoid and it<br />

becomes a big deal. But if you need time for marks,<br />

speak up. And speak up if you need another take.<br />

Cheaper to do it now then having to reshoot. Don't<br />

bug the operator by constantly asking him if focus<br />

was OK You'll have to learn to know whether you<br />

can trust him/her focus eyes.<br />

* Always watch dailies from as far away as you can.<br />

Everything looks sharper from back there. :-)<br />

* Always look at rushes and study your work when<br />

you have the opportunity.<br />

Page 441


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

* If you are putting marks on a studio follow focus<br />

marking wheel, put a<br />

reference mark on the lens barrel that corresponds<br />

to your closest focus mark.<br />

You'll need that to realign your follow focus with<br />

the lens focus barrel if<br />

they come adrift just before you roll.<br />

* The length of your camera + mattebox/shade is a<br />

good travelling distance reference when working<br />

off of a remote head/crane arm.<br />

* A laser pointer aimed at your track focus marks is<br />

definitely a worthwhile aid for doing critic al dolly<br />

shots (and jib arm shots). Also use it to project a<br />

travelling focus point at the talents feet when<br />

doing tight dolly shots.<br />

Cinema electronics makes lasers that are<br />

syncronized to the camera shutter. You can have<br />

the laser dot in the shot and the camera will not<br />

record it. Great for shooting on featureless cycs<br />

and table top work. It tends to make a lot of people<br />

nervous at first because with persistence of vision<br />

the dot always looks like it's on.<br />

* Go see the (recently released in the US) movie<br />

"Without Limits" about runner Prefontaine.<br />

Amazing 800 mm high speed running shots done<br />

with the Preston Light Ranger focusing aid. That<br />

Page 442


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

device uses an operator (usually the 1st AC)<br />

controlled/aimed infrared laser to place focus.<br />

Note the laser aimer can't see what the long lens<br />

operator sees. They have to talk each other<br />

through the shot if there are moves to other<br />

subject matter. (The device needs a heads up video<br />

display for the laser aimer!) As a focus puller you<br />

will dream. about having a Light Ranger. :-)<br />

Before each shot, think FAST - Focus, Aperture,<br />

Shutter, Tachometer (fps). concentrate ...<br />

but good luck anyway ....<br />

Mako Koiwai :-)<br />

...<br />

This is some of the best information I have ever<br />

heard regarding following focus. I would add the<br />

following information learned from my mentor,<br />

Tommy Morris:<br />

• Learn your depth of field. Know what the lenses<br />

can do. They can be your friends.<br />

• All you really need to do your job is a ball point<br />

pen, a slate marker, a tape measure, a set of small<br />

Page 443


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

hand tools, a Swiss army knife, some camera oil,<br />

Q-tips, a camel hair brush, a clean cotton<br />

handkerchief and a Kelly wheel. Everything else is<br />

part of your act.<br />

• You can fit exactly one case of beer and five<br />

pounds of ice in a Mitchell 1000' mag case.<br />

• On tricky dolly shots, keep the slate close to you.<br />

If you think you are blowing the focus, discreetly<br />

kick the slate of the dolly and let the sound man<br />

cut the shot. It only works once per show.;-))<br />

--<br />

Ed Colman<br />

Mako your advice was superb ... there are just two<br />

tiny things I would like to add :)<br />

There will come a moment when the shot "can't" be<br />

done. Deciding when this is is hard you have to<br />

take lots of factors into account. For instance I<br />

did a job (a Super16 commercial) shot in<br />

someone’s living room. The camera was hand<br />

held the stop was T1.3 on a 50mm prime. The<br />

actor was working without marks and the operator<br />

was moving around as well. The room was only<br />

Page 444


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

about 12' square and was very crowded Distances<br />

were 4'6" to 6' and the director wanted it<br />

constantly in focus. What I should have done was<br />

to (politely) put my foot down and try to get the DP<br />

to either raise the light level, stand still (just let the<br />

actor do the moving) or move a lot of people<br />

around so I could see both the camera and the<br />

actor at the same time. As it happened we spent<br />

an hour and a lot of film trying to get it right. This<br />

makes me a dickhead. Yes you are the focus<br />

puller, under normal circumstances there is no<br />

reason for you to even question the setup but<br />

sometimes it has to happen. The usual response<br />

(not from the operator from the director or<br />

production) is but so and so did it on such and<br />

such a production.<br />

I have been exceedingly lucky to have always<br />

worked with wonderful DP's when the going gets<br />

tough like this.<br />

Remember there is no such thing as "Impossible"<br />

just logistically impossible. This job would have<br />

been easily possible in a studio with removable<br />

walls and lots of space were I could see everything<br />

Page 445


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

. When I first started focus pulling I used to<br />

practice with radio controlled cars on a tabletop.<br />

I had a friend who wanted to operate a geared head<br />

and we would both practice with his girlfriend<br />

operating the radio controlled car (which I had<br />

pasted siemens stars on). Start with a 50mm lens<br />

at T1.3 then later move to a 100mm. Practice like<br />

this gives you a certain fluidity of action and<br />

concentration. Also it inspires confidence in your<br />

own abilities. How much better to have an<br />

operator shout SOFT at you in your own home<br />

when you know he is your friend and that nothing<br />

is lost than on a film set with 50 people watching<br />

what you are doing and cursing every time you get<br />

it wrong ?<br />

ALWAYS be nice to your loader :) (be nice to<br />

everyone in fact)<br />

Justin Pentecost<br />

A few minor additions to Mako's Detailed list<br />

Page 446


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I always put the mark to sync up the follow focus<br />

and the lens at the infinity mark.<br />

At frequent intervals check your cloth measure<br />

against a steel tape measure, sometimes the cloth<br />

ones can stretch.<br />

Never measure distance to a person's face with a<br />

steel tape measure. This makes the many thousand<br />

dollar a day models, and the D.P. very Nervous.<br />

Steven ( I cut an actors hand accidentally with a<br />

steel tape measure once, the make up person got<br />

all the credit though) Gladstone<br />

• Remember that focus carries 2/3 back from the<br />

point of focus and 1/3 in front. If you are in doubt,<br />

cheat an inch or two forward. (Of course<br />

remembering Mako's caveat about close focus).<br />

• Pulling focus on moving shots has as much to do<br />

with music and rhythm as anything. The rehearsals<br />

are very important (when available) to find the<br />

rhythm of the shot, and once you and the operator<br />

and the actor are locked in, making the shot is<br />

Page 447


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

much easier. When you are told to 'shoot the<br />

rehearsal' it's not a rehearsal any more.<br />

• A good dolly grip is worth his weight in gold.<br />

(Not always an insignificant amount). He can tell<br />

you if he is an inch or two off his mark, and you<br />

can sometimes compensate. You should have your<br />

own dolly marks anyway so you should already<br />

know if he has missed. He can also totally bone<br />

you.<br />

• Treat everyone nicely. The loader, the operator,<br />

the PA's, everyone. You never know if the guy/gal<br />

filling the coolers one day won't be producing your<br />

next project.<br />

• We are all only flesh and blood. There are some<br />

shots that are 'logistically impossible'. We can only<br />

do our best. No one can be perfect 100% of the<br />

time.<br />

• It helps if your DP supports you. I was doing a<br />

shot many years ago on a table top toy shoot. We<br />

were following these one inch long cars blown<br />

around by streams of air. Long end of the zoom,<br />

plus 2 diopter, the whole thing. I was having a<br />

tough time keeping it all sharp. The crew and AD<br />

started complaining. The Cameraman, God bless<br />

him, stopped the show, looked at everyone and<br />

Page 448


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

asked if any one else thought they could do my job<br />

any better.<br />

Everybody shut up and we got the shot.<br />

• Regarding TC's story: I think that is the exception<br />

rather than the rule.<br />

You can't really do anything about ignorance<br />

except try to educate people. Anyone who has<br />

spent more than five minutes behind a camera<br />

knows what a difficult, nerve racking, unsung job<br />

the Focus Puller has. If the DP doesn't respect this,<br />

there is nothing to do but try to work with him/her<br />

as long as you are able, but sometimes, we do have<br />

to stand up for ourselves. Try not to burn the<br />

bridge though. (Well, you may have to burn it, try<br />

not to dynamite it.) Remember, it is a very small<br />

community.<br />

• Most importantly, try to have fun with it. When it<br />

is all going smoothly, you know if you nailed the<br />

shot or not, and you don't have to ask the operator<br />

if it was sharp. When he starts asking you if it was<br />

sharp, you have arrived.<br />

-- --<br />

Ed Colman<br />

Page 449


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

For instance I did a job (a Super16 commercial)<br />

shot in someone’s living room. The camera was<br />

hand held the stop was T1.3 on a 50mm prime.<br />

The actor was working without marks and the<br />

operator was moving around as well.<br />

The room was only about 12' square and was very<br />

crowded Distances were 4'6" to 6' and the<br />

director wanted it constantly in focus.<br />

Interesting problem. One solution would have been<br />

to use a thin carbon fishing rod stuck on top of the<br />

camera with its tip at 4 feet or even 5 feet if<br />

possible. This is assuming that the operator is<br />

standing and the rod doesn't "interfere" with the<br />

lighting. With this rod giving a 4 feet reading and<br />

putting a bright mark at 3 feet, one can "see" a lot<br />

more easily the finer distinctions between let's say<br />

4'3 and 4'9.<br />

A 2nd assistant with a fine eye for distances can<br />

also help in these situations by giving you some<br />

cues over talkies with headsets Over the years I<br />

have collected different kinds of fishing rods<br />

(Mitchell are my favorite) and rubber sticks and<br />

Page 450


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

find them a lot more handy than lasers because<br />

when stuck to the camera they give me a constant<br />

reference in space and are usually a lot closer to<br />

my field of vision which is generally the actor's<br />

face. I use them when markings are not possible or<br />

because I know I will not have the time to read<br />

them.<br />

Generally these are shoulder shots or fast tracking<br />

shots with the talent moving close in to the<br />

camera at one point. Finally these rods, if properly<br />

positioned, can prevent the actors from moving in<br />

too close to the camera. On some occasions<br />

however, these rods can upset either the actors or<br />

the director, so I use them care and take them off<br />

the camera between takes.<br />

Leo Mac Dougall<br />

A focus-pulling mantra that I think holds true:<br />

"You're only as good as your operator"<br />

And it goes the other way as well: the operator is<br />

only as good as the focus puller.<br />

Page 451


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Lil' Focus tricks to humbly add to Mako's:<br />

"Finger marks":<br />

When the subject approaches quickly, put your<br />

thumb on the wheel so that it stops in the 12<br />

o'clock position when the lens gets to what you<br />

expect to be the closest mark, say 3 feet. That way<br />

you can keep sighting the fast approaching object<br />

but can feel where 3 feet is via thumb and finger<br />

position. I would also have a finger at 4 or 5 feet.<br />

You still have to look at the lens to fine-tune, but it<br />

can really help "feel" the distances.<br />

Depth-of-Field char ts on big primes:<br />

This works great on Panavision primes since they're<br />

nice and big. Put tiny little depth-of field marks on<br />

the lens (above and below the focus index mark).<br />

Use colored tape to color-code them. Just 2-3<br />

stops worth, and different for each lens depending<br />

on focal length. On a 200mm you might only have<br />

5.6, 8 and 11 at the most. On a 17mm you might<br />

have 2.8, 4 and 5.6 (anything more wraps around<br />

the other side of the barrel where you can no<br />

longer see it).<br />

Page 452


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Great for really quick judgements on focus<br />

splits...when doing hand-held with method actors<br />

or other ridiculously blocked and unrehearsed<br />

scenes. A thankless skill.<br />

Keep in mind that it's not THAT accurate on all<br />

primes, since they are engraved to match any<br />

mechanical discrepancies that throw the focus<br />

scale out of perfect, geometric progression. In my<br />

experience they're usually really close.<br />

Put something soft on the end of your steel-tape<br />

measure (such as a tiny boxing-glove that normally<br />

sells as a keychain). It puts the actor at ease when<br />

it zips out within inches of their faces. Sometimes,<br />

you really should not use it, but it is a great tool<br />

99% of the time. Enjoy the time that you would<br />

rather pull focus without marks. Set goals for<br />

yourself such as: I will not use a tape on lenses<br />

shorter than 50mm (unless the subject is really<br />

close). Checking your work in dailies is 50% of the<br />

job. You will no doubt be a good focus puller<br />

when you enjoy this aspect, but don't get too cocky<br />

either.<br />

Page 453


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Don't forget about the speed & timing of the pull.<br />

It's not just about getting to the right marks and<br />

achieving sharpness, it's how one arrives there.<br />

Fast, jerky focus pulls can look really terrible. Go<br />

to dailies and see how timing your focus-pull with<br />

a head turn or a camera movement can completely<br />

disguise it. Your work should be sharp, but<br />

invisible in it's means.<br />

Statement of the obvious:<br />

Work quietly whenever possible. Being a camera<br />

assistant affords you a position very close to the<br />

camera, which is also where the DP, Director hang<br />

out and need to converse. Do your job as<br />

surreptitiously as possible and eavesdrop on what's<br />

happening. If a backlight is being put in, go ahead<br />

and put on an eyebrow now and re-balance the<br />

camera before the light flares the lens...that sort of<br />

thing.<br />

Mark Doering-Powell<br />

Page 454


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Great to see all of the other focusing advice and<br />

tips!<br />

* The best thing is just getting lucky, which after<br />

awhile does happen. I got to spend most of<br />

today sitting under a perfect warm autumn sun<br />

next to the San Francisco bay, turning a locked off<br />

Platinum with a 10mm lens on remotely.<br />

While the director and the agency pondered the<br />

variables in our test, the DP and I got to watch a<br />

great air show (including the Navy Blue Angels)<br />

which just happened to be occurring right in front<br />

of us over a sail boat speckled bay.<br />

Sorry - it was just one of those great pay back days<br />

...... :-)<br />

****************************************************<br />

*********************<br />

I forgot to mention, yes I do have the end of my<br />

steel tape measure covered with a soft white<br />

square with a red X on it. I always try to measure<br />

off to the side of the actors face and I do pay great<br />

attention to what I'm doing when I stick that tape<br />

measure out. I've noticed more actors will now<br />

actually take the end of the tape measure and<br />

bring it next to their eyes. I think we've actually<br />

started to train them ... <br />

Page 455


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Concerning Justin's focus horror story in the small<br />

room ...<br />

I was working with a new (to me) DP when he asked<br />

me to put the 135 on the camera that I had been<br />

asked to set-up hand-held. I knew we were going<br />

to be wide open, T2.1, and I was wondering how<br />

long I was going to last. I must have been radiating<br />

fear because he quickly said "Oh, don't worry, I do<br />

my own hand held follow focusing." Whewwwww.<br />

He showed me that he had a special way of setting<br />

up the shoulder rig for his BL4 that allowed him to<br />

support the cameras weight plus finger the follow<br />

focus whip. (He palmed the left hand support so<br />

that his fingers were free to twiddle the whip.) He<br />

was magnificent in following the action and<br />

keeping things in focus. Turns out that he came<br />

from a documentary background and had always<br />

done his own focusing. His "special" trick was that<br />

instead of trying to always follow focus with long<br />

lens he would move with the subject matter. It<br />

didn't bother me that I was essentially a highly paid<br />

loader that day! <br />

I think I've seen almost as many operators on<br />

movies get into trouble because of a high<br />

Page 456


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

percentage of out of focus shots as focus pullers.<br />

The directors were incredulous that the operators<br />

either hadn't made it clear enough that there were<br />

focus problems or hadn't tried to help more with<br />

focus, i.e. the shots started out of focus meaning<br />

that the operator hadn't handed off the focus to<br />

the AC with a "it's sharp - here!"<br />

I know that in Hollywood more and more focus<br />

pullers are using remote follow focus systems that<br />

allow them to situate themselves where ever it's<br />

advantages (and not just for handheld or jib arm<br />

work). Some people find they can be more accurate<br />

judging distance by being more at right angles to<br />

the camera and subject matter. Band Pro (and soon<br />

Preston) offer simpler, lighter single channel<br />

wireless follow focus options.<br />

I recently had to do an un-rehearsal sequence with<br />

little kids and a mom sitting and playing and<br />

running around a picnic setting on a beach at<br />

twilight wide open, 1.3 with a 65mm. The camera<br />

was on a remote head on a telescoping arm.<br />

The DP/operator talked the crane grips through the<br />

shots via headsets.<br />

Page 457


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

We were all over the place, continuously moving,<br />

and including inserts of toes wiggling in the sand,<br />

etc. No time, no way to ask for focus marks. I'd say<br />

at least 95% of the footage was usable focus-wise.<br />

The fact that we were wide open made focusing<br />

pretty easy! The director was very happy.<br />

For the ultimate on everything about focusing, see<br />

Fritz Hershey's book "Optics and Focus" (Focal<br />

Press) for camera assistants. 280+ pages, from<br />

basics to very technical to Zen. (Even) I haven't<br />

been able to work my way through it. <br />

The very best general book on assisting, that I<br />

think everyone could learn something from is Doug<br />

Hart's The Camera Assistant, also Focal Press.<br />

Doug was Gordon Willis AC for ten years, besides<br />

working with other top DP’s.<br />

I remember some test scores from when I was a<br />

kid. I was only average, but I scored very high in<br />

knowing where and how to find information! But<br />

honestly, I have managed to absorb some of what<br />

I've read .... :-)<br />

Page 458


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

... Mako - CML is all about sharing .... anybody<br />

want to "share" my ..., oh oh, almost forgot the<br />

rental houses are listening ..Koiwai. ;-)<br />

Especially in light of the recent discussion<br />

concerning the many soft shots in "What Dreams<br />

My Come," I want to let everyone know what we did<br />

on our recent Disney World commercial in Orlando.<br />

We had some night exterior shots over water at the<br />

Epcot Center using a 300mm Nikkor F/2.0. (Note<br />

that every 300mm Nikkor that I've ever seen<br />

adapted for motion picture use has been a T2.3,<br />

2.4, as measured on the light transmission devices<br />

at various rental houses. If you look through that<br />

lens and open up the aperture, you will see that at<br />

some point the iris disappears behind a restriction.<br />

If you check the aperture ring you'll find that that<br />

happens around t2.3, 2.4. Opening the aperture<br />

any further has no effect.) The camera was on the<br />

shore; we were shooting a family at the back of a<br />

boat that was moving away from us. I simply follow<br />

Page 459


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

focused while looking through the eyepiece while<br />

our DP operated off of a monitor. Another DP that I<br />

work with also "allows" me to do this since he<br />

actually prefers to operate off of a monitor. I'm<br />

finding that at least in commercials more and more<br />

of the operating, especially jib arm and low angle<br />

hand held work (of course remote head work) is<br />

being done off of monitors. For one thing, the CEI<br />

4 & 5 taps (Arri and Panavision) and the<br />

435/535(new) IVS taps are good enough to allow<br />

that.<br />

I did a Japanese Honda spot a few months ago<br />

where the Japanese DP probably looked through<br />

the camera eyepiece twice in three days of exter ior<br />

work. He loved using my 5" TransVideo on-board<br />

monitor. (I thought the on-board monitor was<br />

suppose to be for my benefit :-)<br />

Although I understand the position that the focus<br />

pullers were in on "What Dreams May Come" (see<br />

my message after talking with them from a couple<br />

of weeks ago) I can't help but think that at least on<br />

some of those stationary close-ups, focus could<br />

have been improved by looking at a monitor.<br />

Page 460


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I remember doing a shot where we followed the<br />

feet of a rodeo cowboy all around the field with a<br />

600mm wide open. We got great shots that I<br />

seriously doubt I could have done without focusing<br />

off of a monitor. I find it especially easy with long<br />

lenses and no depth of field (obviously!). And we<br />

were able to do it "right now" with no waiting to get<br />

focus marks or set-up/calibrate/rent a Preston<br />

Light Ranger, or restricting the talents actions.<br />

Monitor focusing can also work great when<br />

shooting inserts, following a pen across the page,<br />

etc.<br />

Another way of using a monitor to do focus is to<br />

note size on the monitor with a focus<br />

distance/mark. Full head is one distance, half a<br />

head another distance, etc.<br />

These techniques are not a way out of being able<br />

to do follow focusing the old fashion way but are<br />

often a tool to use if pressed for time/losing the<br />

light or for unusual conditions like shooting across<br />

water, (PanaTape is only good to about 18/19<br />

feet). It sure beats the 3,000 feet of almost entirely<br />

unusable footage that I once saw from our "B"<br />

Page 461


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

camera on a boat to boat sequence on a feature.<br />

Btw. it was the operator that caught hell in that<br />

incident. He didn't report the problems and he<br />

never seemed to grab the focus, at least at the<br />

beginning of the shot to give the focus puller a<br />

starting point.<br />

***************************************<br />

Another excellent but slightly time and manpower<br />

consuming technique to guarantee usable long<br />

lens focus is the side sighting method.<br />

A sighting mechanism is situated 90 degrees to the<br />

line of action (say a car coming towards the<br />

camera). Inexpensive rifle scopes can be purchased<br />

for $30, but you can also use a "C" stand arm<br />

arrangement. One needs to fashion a marking disk<br />

and a pointer. I used wire for a pointer and paper<br />

plates for a disk through which my tripod/"C"<br />

stand penetrated.<br />

Usually utilizing a walkie talkie for communicating,<br />

the sighting device is aimed at a point where the<br />

object will be (stand-in, PA or actual object) while<br />

the focus puller eye focuses on the same object,<br />

and a mark is made on the disk opposite the<br />

pointer and on the lens/follow focus. You do this<br />

until you have all of the marks you think you need.<br />

Page 462


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

During the shot, one person must follow the<br />

subject matter with the sighting device, another<br />

reads off the numbered marks on the sighting<br />

marking disk and relays them to the focus puller<br />

who just matches the numbers. Of course some<br />

form of anticipation must be built in.<br />

The good thing about this method is that you don't<br />

have to have actual physical marks along/next to<br />

the pathway that the subject matter is following.<br />

This means this method can be used for shooting<br />

over water or through the air.<br />

Sometimes the sighting mechanism can't be 90<br />

degrees to the subject but it will still work. Keep<br />

the pointer fairly long so that the marks aren't too<br />

close together.<br />

Some AC's have made very professional looking<br />

rigs with Delron or nylon marking disks, etc. If<br />

anyone is interested I can get you in touch with<br />

someone who has made up a very nice rig.<br />

I personally don't use this method since it's usually<br />

too time and manpower consuming. I made it up<br />

for a shoot where I was warned that we would have<br />

a lot of long lens at the camera work. It turned out<br />

Page 463


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

that every shot was in a hallway or tunnel where<br />

there was not room off to the side! <br />

I did have my rig with me for a specific job where<br />

we were going to be following a car coming right at<br />

us with the Clairmont 1,000mm T4.5 lens on a dry<br />

lake bed. I explained the rig to the out of<br />

town/new DP that I was working with. He had never<br />

shot a car commercial. He said no we won't need to<br />

use that.<br />

I don't want to take the time; I can do the focus<br />

myself.<br />

_Part way_ through the second take he let go of the<br />

focus knob and told me that I better do the focus<br />

myself!!! We had a poor video tap (not one from<br />

Clairmont! :-) and poor monitors. We ended up<br />

taking the time to set up some cones for focusing<br />

marks ...<br />

Enough to make one buy a camera and call oneself<br />

a DP! :-)<br />

... Mako Koiwai<br />

Page 464


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Page 465


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Filming Smoke<br />

In light of very disappointing initial results, I'm<br />

triple checking myself here... I'm doing some work<br />

for a friend, shooting elements for CD cover art for<br />

a garage band he's been working on. I recently<br />

shot a wisp (plume?) of cigarette smoke to be<br />

composited with the band's name for the cover of<br />

the CD.<br />

Shooting Vision 500T (5279) rated at 400 ISO, I<br />

used a 6x9 ERS from about a 3:00 position to<br />

sidelight the smoke against a black (duevetyn)<br />

background. I incident read the ERS at T8 (at<br />

1/125 of sec (shooting slides)) and shot at T8...<br />

Shooting very close to the plume of smoke (only<br />

thing in frame, cigarette was below frame line)<br />

about a foot away... Got back a VERY thin<br />

(anorexic) negative with damn near NOTHING on<br />

it... I'm at a loss...<br />

HOWEVER... I did not shoot a gray scale ... and<br />

damn near everything I have run through this lab in<br />

recent months has come back disappointing...<br />

Page 466


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

(how can you tell if something has REALLY been<br />

pushed when you can't trust printer lights or the<br />

lab??)<br />

Any thoughts would be fantastic. As a side note, I<br />

didn't directly backlight the smoke (from a 12:00<br />

position) because I was forced to shoot this outside<br />

and I was avoiding all the other extraneous crap in<br />

the air...<br />

Thanks.<br />

Jay Holben<br />

>incident read the ERS at T8 (at 1/125 of sec<br />

(shooting slides)) and shot at T8...<br />

Did you happen to take a spot reading of the<br />

smoke ? If it's a really whispy cigarette smoke, it<br />

might not have been thick enough to catch enough<br />

side-light. If the smoke were f-5.6 spot (brightest<br />

parts of smoke), then a t-3.5 lens stop would have<br />

Page 467


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

yielded a thicker negative (a light-gray smoke).<br />

Incident to ERS may still say f-8.<br />

As was implied, had the smoke been backlit at T-8,<br />

it may have exposed a little brighter on the neg.<br />

But side-lighting works if you're a spot-meter<br />

addict. :-)<br />

With smoke elements against black, it's best to<br />

overexpose 1/3 to 1 stop since most of the frame<br />

(behind the smoke) is black (1/3 stop was done by<br />

rating the film at 400). You have a choice in post<br />

to composite the smoke white, or with less<br />

luminance: gray.<br />

Of course, it could be the lab, the film , the meter,<br />

the camera, the lens, the light got bumped...but it<br />

seems one of the biggest variables would be the<br />

density of the smoke, no ?<br />

Or maybe it really didn't stay in the soup long<br />

enough...<br />

Mark<br />

Page 468


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Side-lit smoke is not going to be nearly as visible<br />

as backlit smoke. Also, if you metered the wisp of<br />

smoke with a spot meter from the camera position,<br />

you would want to open up from what the meter<br />

gave you, since the wisp should be white-ish<br />

against the black background, not medium grey. If<br />

you read a t/8, you probably should shoot at a t/4.<br />

I find that when filming against a black<br />

background, sometimes the subject itself needs to<br />

be a little hot for the image to feel correctly<br />

exposed - in other words, the frame should have a<br />

range from something dark to something hot. If<br />

you put something medium grey against<br />

something black, it feels a little murky. This<br />

becomes even more important in black & white<br />

photography; the image needs a certain "snap" - a<br />

nice dynamic range of blacks, greys, and whites.<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 469


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Wow, how much extraneous crap is there in the air<br />

where you shot, if you have to worry about hiding<br />

it and at the same time you're not getting exposure<br />

on your side-lit smoke ? !!<br />

I don't know about metering this stuff, smoke efx<br />

are an eyeball thing to me. If this is a still you can<br />

bracket anyway.<br />

And - are you shooting then 5279 as a still film ?<br />

Do you really trust the still labs that do this stuff ?<br />

I've found that to 'sell it' with smoke you need<br />

easily 2 or 3 times as much smoke density as your<br />

eye thinks, and maybe more. I've used 5 or 6<br />

cigarettes mashed together out of frame just to<br />

represent one. I did some medieval church scenes<br />

in my feature "Wired Angel" with a censer. For<br />

about 3 or 4 setups, I bought a pound of incense.<br />

The religious supply shop said something like "that<br />

would last a Church a month or more"<br />

And I was very tempted to supplement the real<br />

incense with a Rosco 1500<br />

and a plastic tube...<br />

Page 470


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

It's just that thin line between realism and<br />

overdoing it.<br />

Also, 3:00 is maybe too subtle. You _must_ give<br />

smoke, steam, etc enough backlight.<br />

And as I'm sure you know, saying the words "roll<br />

camera" will always cause a change in wind<br />

direction...<br />

-Sam "get a good Key Wafter on the crew" Wells<br />

Page 471


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Green Screen (16mm)<br />

I am going to use green screen in a section of an<br />

upcoming 16mm spot to isolate some waving<br />

pennants and then bring them into a shot. not<br />

having a lot of16mm experience I wonder if one<br />

camera is better suited than another, SR or Aaton.<br />

thanks in advance<br />

tom Weston<br />

I don’t think that the camera really makes the<br />

difference, what you are looking for is probably a<br />

nice stock like the 45 to reduce any risk of grain.<br />

Serge Desrosiers DP<br />

The answer here is again Film, or Video?<br />

I will not debate which camera is steadier, (actually<br />

I had an old A.C.L. that was as steady as any SR I’ve<br />

ever compared it to.) However remember this, as I<br />

Page 472


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

understand it, in telecine, 16mm is registered on<br />

the side of the film, as is the Aaton. So if the film is<br />

not slit precisely the image should not weave in the<br />

telecine, as the exposed image will still be in<br />

register with the edge of the film. However since<br />

the image in an SR, is registered to a pin during<br />

exposure, theoretically if the film edge isn’t perfect<br />

in relation to the perfs, there may be weave. I am<br />

not sure exactly how film is registered in 16mm<br />

opticals, however I would guess it is by registration<br />

pin.<br />

This may not be an issue, if you are only dropping<br />

one image on top of another, and not doing split<br />

screens, and lining up matte edges, and the such.<br />

Of course if the camera you use is not up to specs,<br />

then good registration is highly unlikely.<br />

I hope this helps.<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Since the 16mm perforations were never designed<br />

for full registration pins, at Aaton we preferred to<br />

follow the ‘One Line’ (side guide) ‘One Point’ (claw<br />

dead point at very low speed) classic geometric<br />

Page 473


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

alignment system. The end result is that XTR’s<br />

deliver a frame to frame registration which is better<br />

than 1/2000 of the frame dimensions both<br />

vertically and laterally. Who else?<br />

There is a fixed guide and a lateral pressure guide<br />

at the image level on all Aaton cameras (like on<br />

telecines), as opposed to film channel top-right<br />

and bottom-left posts found on some other<br />

cameras; thus NO loop stiffness dependant lateral<br />

weave at all.<br />

Furthermore this lateral pressure guide, combined<br />

with the 8 micron vault shape of the rear pressure<br />

plate, insures such a perfect depth positioning of<br />

the film (good for breathless images) that the<br />

aperture top and bottom horizontal rails are no<br />

longer necessary: that is why a Super16 Aaton XTR<br />

shows much less dust and hairs on the picture than<br />

any other camera.<br />

Jean-Pierre<br />

Thanks for such great input. This kind of info is<br />

really helpful to those of us who work almost<br />

exclusively in 35. Myself, I am a visual effects<br />

Page 474


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

specialist, and registration is of the utmost<br />

importance, hence the exclusive use of 35mm. In<br />

often asked about the feasibility of shooting<br />

something on 16, and till know I’ve always thought<br />

it was a really bad idea, primarily from the<br />

registration point of view. It’s really helpful to<br />

know that is not necessarily the case.<br />

Thanks for the explanation!!!<br />

Don Canfield<br />

I spoke with someone recently who had been<br />

approached by a large broadcasting company to<br />

modify their SR3s to solve the weave issue. He was<br />

able to make a prototype gate that (at great<br />

expense) did somewhat solve the problem, but<br />

then the funding for the project (and many other<br />

things) was cut. He said the weave was often on the<br />

diagonal, due to the opposing loops in the SR<br />

magazine. (He doesn’t really want to make these<br />

gates, so I won’t mention his name.)<br />

Interesting... I think the Aaton proves that simple<br />

and elegant is usually the best approach.<br />

Jeff ""speaking in hushed tones"" Kreines<br />

Page 475


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Surely Jeff it would have been less expensive for<br />

the broadcaster to go with the AATON XTRProd<br />

rather than re inventing the wheel with expensive<br />

mods and then they could have the great benefit of<br />

AatonCode, integrated video assist and a 12 volt<br />

low power operating system just to name a few<br />

features!<br />

But then as they say ‘ you can lead a horse to water<br />

but you can’t make it drink!’<br />

John Bowring.<br />

Whilst I think weave/stability may be a problem for<br />

those who print, and lets face it, it shows up less<br />

when projected than when composited on tape.<br />

I also believe that stability of any film is becoming<br />

less and less of an issue as it’s very easy to<br />

stabilise an image later.<br />

We’re arguing pink, lime green or scotchlight balls<br />

for a motion tracked shot at the moment :-)<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Page 476


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Many telecines (especially unmodded Ranks) also<br />

add weave to an image... you might run a test film<br />

through the telecine (a simple grid will do) to check<br />

its steadiness.<br />

Jeff Kreines - DeMott/Kreines Films<br />

thanks to all for advice on this question. we shot<br />

this week with an SR2 and it turned out great. I<br />

shot with and without a net and found that we were<br />

able to cut a matt just fine with the net so we are<br />

going with that version (I prefer the look).<br />

one interesting (surprising to me) effect. we shot a<br />

row of banners against the sky then lifted a 12x12<br />

green screen (from Fore Peak in Orlando, fla., a<br />

great source for terrific and reasonably priced<br />

green screens) behind them and shot them again.<br />

the idea was to make a matte of the pennants that<br />

we could raise into the shot upside down thus<br />

creating a menacing jaw (hey, it wasn’t my idea).<br />

the pennants were opaque white but aged to the<br />

Page 477


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

point of being grey. they were back lit. against the<br />

pale blue, partly cloudy sky they were about 85<br />

i.r.e. during the transfer, however, when the green<br />

screen was lifted behind them their value shifted to<br />

about 70 i.r.e. nothing changed from our angle.<br />

not the stop. not the lite hitting them. when I shot<br />

it I assumed the difference I saw was do to the<br />

contrast difference between the sky and the green<br />

screen but, low and behold, it was actually there on<br />

the negative. we had to ""fix"" the discrepancy with<br />

the quadra (guess who was the ""saviour"") because<br />

we wanted the upper and lower ""teeth"" to match.<br />

it turned out fine but I still don’t understand the<br />

density shift.<br />

Tom<br />

Page 478


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Gun Flashes<br />

Some of you have probably done a lot more gun<br />

shots than I (on film that is), hence the reason for<br />

this post.<br />

In the recent action footage I did, the director was<br />

sometime disappointed because not all the gun<br />

flashes show up on the film. Of course we all<br />

understand why, knew about this problem<br />

beforehand, but also realize we are pretty much<br />

powerless to do much about it.<br />

Machine guns and shot guns are usually all right<br />

because they have a longer lasting flash. Even<br />

though the gun guys are using special gunpowder<br />

mixes to cause longer duration flashes, handgun<br />

flashes often happen while the shutter is closed.<br />

Even if one were to do 10 takes of each shot there<br />

is no guaranty that it would work for all gun shots.<br />

Especially in a shot where the actors fires multiples<br />

shots, the chances of getting them all on the film<br />

are reduced even further the more shots are fired.<br />

It's really a toss of a coin. It sure looks odd when<br />

someone fires and you can see the recoil but no<br />

spark.<br />

Page 479


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Now some know it all editor told the director that<br />

using slower shutter speeds would help. Gee, some<br />

rocket scientist there, quick call the Nobel society.<br />

We were already shooting with the shutter at 180.<br />

Reducing the frame rate in order to slow shutter<br />

speed, already at 180, would diminish the chances<br />

equally, not to mention the really fast pace action<br />

shots we would get by undercranking. Old Chaplin<br />

meets Rambo :-).<br />

Anyway I told the director that this editor should<br />

stick with editing but.... that I belonged to this<br />

really good and intelligent e-mail group and that I<br />

would submit the question.<br />

Using Panavision cameras with a 200 degrees<br />

shutter would offer a marginal improvement but<br />

that would not be the solution to all.<br />

The guys in post-production say it is a relatively<br />

simple, and commonly done, task to take a gun<br />

flash from one gun shot and copy it to another<br />

where there is no flash. That sound all right but<br />

$$$.<br />

I'd appreciate your input about this matter.<br />

Daniel Villeneuve<br />

Page 480


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Daniel...after 10 years of low budget features and<br />

half a hearing loss later...their is an answer.<br />

Creative Efx, in San Fernando CA., makes a neat<br />

line of guns which take electronic ammo charges,<br />

which are safe at any distance, even less than a<br />

foot, and produce a long duration flash. You don¹t<br />

need a pyro guy, or a gun expert, and they look<br />

good.<br />

The trade off is that the charges cost about $4<br />

apiece, and not every gun type has been modified,<br />

and their is no chamber or moving parts which<br />

limits close ups...<br />

Howard Wexler<br />

Test-test-test!!! The armorer should be able to<br />

provide loads that will give you the flame effect<br />

you want. Remember the type of weapon will<br />

influence what type of muzzle flash you get.<br />

Page 481


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

M-16's and MP-5's all use the "Hollywood" flash<br />

suppresser (a small "restrictor") in the barrel that<br />

increases the gas pressure so that the weapon will<br />

cycle with the lower pressure blanks. This would<br />

tend to reduce the amount of muzzle flash you get.<br />

There are many specialized weapon loads out<br />

there...so consult with your fav (licensed) armorer.<br />

Also, playing with the shutter angle and<br />

overcranking might give you some interesting<br />

effects.<br />

And remember safety for everyone involved.<br />

Especially with the talent and safe directions for<br />

pointing the muzzles of the weapons. The Brandon<br />

Lee incident was a tragic and senseless accident.<br />

-bill<br />

What you were seeing was the gun flashes running<br />

slightly out of phase with the shutter in the<br />

camera.<br />

The same thing happens when you see HMI<br />

"flicker" with magnetic ballast’s and an off speed<br />

Page 482


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

generator or camera (or if you have really bad<br />

karma that day, BOTH.)<br />

When it is only slightly out of phase it is seen as a<br />

slow darkening and then lightening of the lamp's<br />

apparent exposure on the film. When it is more out<br />

of phase, it gets brighter and darker more quickly<br />

and appears to be more of a "flicker."<br />

The rate of cycling is dependent on the "beat<br />

frequency" between the two, the camera frame rate<br />

and the flashes per second of the gun barrel flash<br />

of the HMI flash.<br />

You either need longer duration gun barrel flashes,<br />

or sync the flashing to the shutter speed.<br />

Bill Bennett, Los Angeles<br />

Guns with electronic flashes: Creative Efx 818 365-<br />

0655 Ammo for electronic guns: Edolmar Eng 818<br />

365-9208 haven’t used them, but have seen it on<br />

film and they work well, with a long flash. No pyro<br />

guy, permit or fire officer needed. Only works with<br />

modified guns, currently only 9mm and a few<br />

Page 483


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

others. About 4 bucks a pop, not including gun<br />

rental...<br />

Howard Wexler Los Angeles<br />

If they exist, then the folks that would have them is<br />

Stembridge gun rentals in Glendale (818/246-<br />

4333). Syd Stembridge has done just about every<br />

imaginable type of speciality guns for movies.<br />

Bill Crow<br />

Has anyone ever tried using radio to give these<br />

signals ? All you would need would be an opto<br />

slotted disk mechanically connected to the output<br />

shaft and two tone generators (one for open, one<br />

for closed). On a very small set you could get away<br />

with using 50.5 licence free equipment (like a baby<br />

alarm or kids walky talkies). The receiving<br />

equipment would simply be a small unit that<br />

Page 484


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

receives the tones and interrupts the firing of the<br />

weapon when the shutter closed tone is heard. any<br />

delay in the action of the guns could be<br />

compensated simply by rotating the disk on the<br />

camera so that the shutter open signal could go<br />

out before the shutter really is open.<br />

As far as interrupting the gun goes (and I am hope<br />

no one considers this to be off topic) how did they<br />

interrupt the machine guns on first world war<br />

fighters ? This is a similar problem to ours (except<br />

that their propellers had way smaller blades than<br />

our shutters).<br />

Justin<br />

Obviously, the solution is the new AatonTCGun. A<br />

very accurate timecode generator on each gun,<br />

jam-synced to the camera, locks the gun's firing to<br />

shutter -open points on any Aaton camera.<br />

In addition, a timecode-controlled limiter can drop<br />

the record level of any digital recorder for the<br />

duration of the gunshot (tho many recordists<br />

prefer analog for guns).<br />

Page 485


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

This circuit was originally designed for the Chinese<br />

military, when the Chinese Documentary Studios<br />

purchased 40 Aatons some years ago. ;-)<br />

(Actually, I would think that these guns could be<br />

wireless by now, each with a little receiver.)<br />

Jeff Kreines<br />

Page 486


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Infra Red<br />

A pilot we're involved with needs to shoot a<br />

helicopter surveillance sequence that would, in real<br />

life, be shot with an electronic infrared camera. I<br />

talked to Kodak here in LA and was told that the<br />

infrared motion picture film was only available in<br />

35mm, 150 foot lengths (2481 Black and white, or<br />

2443 color). Has anyone had experience (hopefully<br />

recent) shooting infrared (not still photography)?<br />

Any hints or tips? And where can the film be<br />

ordered from (Kodak Hollywood doesn't deal with<br />

it)? Thanks in advance.......<br />

Mike Most<br />

Okay, first of all you need to realize that what the<br />

infrared film sees is different than what the<br />

electronic infrared camera sees by a long shot; the<br />

High Speed Infrared peters at at 8500 A and can't<br />

deal with non-actinic sources at all. But it _does_<br />

Page 487


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

look different and your viewers probably won't<br />

know the difference.<br />

High Speed Infrared is available as a Graphics<br />

product and can be ordered from a Kodak Graphics<br />

dealer.... make sure you get the right perf because<br />

it comes in a bunch of goofy perforations. Don't<br />

shoot 2443 unless you have access to an ME-4 lab<br />

and are ready for a nightmare.<br />

Scott Dorsey<br />

I just shot a whole mess of the black and white<br />

infrared film (2481) last week with good success.<br />

Here's what I learned:<br />

The film is available from Sammy’s Camera in<br />

Hollywood in 150 foot lengths on "100 foot"<br />

daylight spools. (It is a 4 mil polyester base, 2 mils<br />

thinner than your usual base, so they are able to<br />

get 150 feet of the stuff onto a "100 foot" daylight<br />

spool) The company I worked for bought Sammy’s<br />

out, so you might have to wait until the next<br />

shipment comes in. You must re-spool the film on<br />

to cores in the absolute dark. You must do it slowly<br />

Page 488


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

to avoid static, about 10 minutes per roll. You can<br />

not load the film into magazines using a loading<br />

bag on location, the cloth of the bag transmits IR<br />

energy, it will fog the film. Only a loading<br />

darkroom on a camera truck will do. Black plastic<br />

sheeting or black painted glass windows might<br />

block visible light, but will transmit IR energy and<br />

fog the film. The film must be kept at 50 degrees F<br />

or below. We put a small refrigerator on the camera<br />

truck and used dry ice in coolers for the<br />

magazines. Put a couple of layers of space blanket<br />

over the camera when you are shooting to avoid<br />

stray IR light leaks. The film's polyester base<br />

conducts IR light like a fiber optics do. You should<br />

try to load the magazine on to the camera in<br />

subdued light.<br />

The film has *no* anti-halation backing, nor does<br />

it have a gray dye in the base like the B&W films<br />

do. Any camera with a polished chrome pressure<br />

plate will *not* work. We had Clairmont Camera<br />

modify an Arri 35-3 by installing a black plated<br />

pressure plate into the camera. It worked well.<br />

You can not use the normal witness mark for focus.<br />

The infrared light falls in different plane that the<br />

visible light. We had Clairmont put special<br />

temporary IR witness marks onto a set of Zeiss<br />

Page 489


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

prime lenses, we measured the distance then used<br />

the special IR witness mark to set the focus. The<br />

longest lens you can hope to have focus with, even<br />

with the special witness mark, is about 35mm.<br />

It is recommended to use as deep a stop as<br />

possible, at least a 5.6 or 8. We did most of our<br />

shooting with the 10 and 14mm lenses. Anything<br />

longer and you can't guarantee focus. It is almost<br />

impossible to put IR witness marks on a zoom as<br />

the new witness line needs to be in a different<br />

place for each discrete focal length. Still zoom<br />

lenses do it with a curving IR witness line off to the<br />

side of the primary witness line.<br />

You must put a Kodak Wratten 87 or 87C filter on<br />

the lens. The filter looks to the eye like *tar paper*,<br />

absolutely BLACK. Harrison and Harrison can make<br />

the filter in very short time after you request it. We<br />

got some in 2 days! You can not see through the<br />

lens with this filter on. Fortunately, B&W CCD video<br />

taps *can* see through the filter. We used a<br />

"bumble bee" video tap from Clairmont with the IR<br />

cut filter removed.<br />

Exposure is a guess, as no light meter is measuring<br />

the IR energy, only visible light, which the film<br />

does not see. I used the recommendations in the<br />

spec sheet for daylight exposures, you know, "Sun<br />

Page 490


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

over left shoulder...., Cloudy bright...." and got<br />

good results. You can get the spec sheet from<br />

Kodak's "Fax-back" system. (800) 242-2424 the<br />

document you want is: 150602 F-13 ver. 4/96<br />

"High speed infrared film" You call and select the<br />

document, give the system your fax number, and it<br />

sends you the tech sheets which have a lot of<br />

useful information.<br />

Since you are simulating a FLIR surveillance system,<br />

I would recommend you contact the people that<br />

make the actual airborne FLIR systems. Contact the<br />

Burbank / Glendale Police aerial support unit at<br />

Burbank Airport and get the name of their system<br />

supplier. I would bet money the manufacturer or<br />

their rep would lend you the system, and install it<br />

on the helicopter for you, in return for credit. I<br />

know that KCAL channel 9 News flew with a demo<br />

FLIR system during the big fires a couple of years<br />

back, it was a company demo system, gratis. I<br />

believe the output is NTSC video, recordable on a<br />

standard recorder.<br />

The problem you are going to have using the IR<br />

B&W film is you need to use a long lens to simulate<br />

the point of view of an airborne helicopter. It will<br />

be impossible to focus the long lens. Also, the FLIR<br />

systems see much farther into the IR spectrum<br />

Page 491


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

than the B&W IR film does. It can truly see a hot<br />

engine through a car's hood, and the glow of a<br />

person's body hiding in a bush, something the B&W<br />

film can not do.<br />

Hope this helps.<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

I did some research on infrared when I still worked<br />

at Schumacher Camera (Chicago). Never shot it<br />

myself, though. Call the KODAK people. They have<br />

a bunch of literature on IR. Some of it is not in<br />

print anymore; I was able to talk the representative<br />

into making me a photocopy of some material.<br />

Here is a list of KODAK publications relating to IR<br />

film:<br />

- KODAK Infrared Films (N-17)<br />

- Pictorial use of Kodak's B/W high speed infrared<br />

film, 2481/4143 (no number)<br />

- Applied Infrared Photography (M-28)<br />

- An excerpt from the KODAK "Basic Scientific<br />

Photography" book, pages 27-30 (N-9)<br />

Page 492


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

All these contain cross-references to other IR<br />

publications. Especially useful is M-28, since it has<br />

many examples of color IR photography in it. If you<br />

can, get the original or a color copy. Looking at a<br />

B/W photocopy of a color IR photo tells you very<br />

little.<br />

Since shooting IR is VERY different from shooting<br />

normal neg., definitely shoot tests. Also be aware<br />

that the temperature of the film can (and will)<br />

change exposure! Leaving a camera with IR film<br />

loaded in the sun will dramatically change what you<br />

are getting.<br />

When I researched IR, I asked around this board,<br />

and got an answer from<br />

Denny Clairmont:<br />

"On February l5, Marc Shipman-Mueller asked<br />

about using infrared film in motion picture<br />

cameras. Lately, Clairmont Camera has had several<br />

customers do this. There are several things that<br />

need to be done.<br />

First of all, the Kodak black and white film has no<br />

anti-halation backing and because of this, a<br />

camera with a totally black pressure plate needs to<br />

be used. This leaves the Arri 2C, the Mitchell<br />

cameras with rollers on the pressure pod and<br />

certain Eyemos. If you have a pressure pad with a<br />

Page 493


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

shining chrome bar or anything in the picture area<br />

that is light colored, the light will pass through the<br />

film and reflect forward and be photographed. We<br />

recently had this happen with normal black & white<br />

film.<br />

You can check with Kodak but I believe only l00'<br />

daylight loads are available in 35mm black & white<br />

infrared. Remember you will need Bell and Howell<br />

perfs l866 on both sides which is the standard<br />

perfs used in most of the world.<br />

You can use infrared filters #87, 88A or 89B in<br />

front of the lens which will not let any visible light<br />

through - only infrared light. Reflex viewing on the<br />

camera will, therefore, do you no good. This filter<br />

is available from Harrison and Harrison. You can<br />

use a red #25 or RD-5 filter that will let infrared<br />

light pass through as well as visible light. Shoot a<br />

test to determine the look and exposure you're<br />

after .<br />

Infrared light is a different wave length than<br />

normal lenses have their back focus adjusted to.<br />

Most still lenses have either a red dot or some sort<br />

of a red mark near the normal witness mark and<br />

with these you should focus by eye to the normal<br />

mark and then shift the position you have focused<br />

to the red mark. If you focus by tape measure, use<br />

Page 494


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the red mark to set the engraved distance on the<br />

lens. A lens technician, using a collimator, could<br />

put red marks on your lenses by comparing a still<br />

lens that has the red mark with the same focal<br />

length cine-lens and, using the collimator, mark<br />

the red mark using the same back focus offset for<br />

the same focal length still lens. I would not use<br />

zoom lenses. Even though I have not tested them<br />

with infrared, I would be surprised if there wasn't<br />

focus problems. As far as heat is concerned, I don't<br />

know of any problems normal film wouldn't have.<br />

All film should be processed as soon as possible<br />

and I don't know of any problems that normal film<br />

wouldn't have.<br />

Kodak has a pamphlet on using black and white<br />

infrared film. There is color infrared film and you<br />

can get all kinds of odd colors depending on what<br />

you are photographing and the color of filter you<br />

are using. Commonly you use a yellow filter for the<br />

color film. When using black and white infrared,<br />

anything with chlorophyll in its surface<br />

photographs white (if you photograph a forest, it<br />

would appear to have snow on the trees and grass).<br />

Tungsten light has a lot of infrared light and it<br />

actually increases if you use a dimmer and dim the<br />

light. "<br />

Page 495


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Marc Shipman-Mueller<br />

Hi Everyone,<br />

Has anyone shot with Kodak's new colour infrared<br />

stock? This is the still film that can be special<br />

ordered for larger quantities for motion picture<br />

use. I know people who've talked about using it,<br />

but no one has yet. What kinds of filters work best<br />

with it? How do you rate it? What special handling<br />

issues are there to deal with when using this film in<br />

a motion picture camera?<br />

I just bought a roll of it for my still camera, and I<br />

plan on taking it out this weekend to capture the<br />

vivid autumn colours that are out now - just to test<br />

out the stuff and see what it does.<br />

Also, anyone have any experience with the new<br />

Ilford SFX B&W 'pseudo' infrared stock (motion<br />

picture-wise)?<br />

This has been floating around in my head for a<br />

while, but I've never has the chance to use the<br />

stuff.<br />

Curious,<br />

Page 496


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jeremy "F3" Benning<br />

You want a #12 yellow filter for general purpose<br />

photography, just like the older ME-4 color<br />

infrared material.<br />

The stuff does behave differently when processed<br />

in E-6, VNF, and Aerochrome chemistry, with the<br />

E-6 having the highest gamma of the lot<br />

I recommend the book "Applied Infrared<br />

Photography" available from your local Kodak<br />

dealer. Very good introduction to infrared work.<br />

Scott Dorsey<br />

I found the Ilford SFX extended range film to be<br />

very disappointing in terms of an infrared look (in<br />

stills), certainly compared to the "regular" true<br />

Kodak infrared B&W film. The Ilford film just gives<br />

Page 497


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

you a little haze penetration but none of the<br />

obvious white foliage look.<br />

Their was an issue of a British still magazine a few<br />

months ago that tested various colored filters with<br />

a Kodak color infrared film. At that time I wrote a<br />

message describing the results of that test. I can't<br />

find my copy of that issue at the moment.<br />

Perhaps Geoff archived that message ... ?<br />

Recently both Otto Nemenz and Clairmont Camera<br />

had infrared shoots take equipment out of their<br />

facilities. You might check with them ...<br />

I know you need to use a black pressure plate,<br />

have an infrared focus witness mark added to your<br />

lenses. Using a 435, (or of course Panaflexes) you<br />

can use the visually opaque infrared gel filters in<br />

the camera so that you don't have to use an<br />

infrared sensitive video system to operate off of.<br />

Mako Kowai<br />

Shot some stills with it a couple of months ago.<br />

Then tried a lot of pure colored filters and wedged<br />

it a bunch. From memory, here are the results: The<br />

Page 498


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

two best looks are with a yellow (12) filter or with<br />

no filter. All living plant life turns red so best shots<br />

are outdoors. I processed in E-6 for a very<br />

contrasty look. It is very unforgiving film. a half<br />

stop difference is pretty significant. Lastly and<br />

most frustrating is, I found no good way to<br />

determine proper exposure!?! There may be a way<br />

out there, I'll let someone else figure it out, the<br />

stuff is VERY expensive.<br />

Eric Swenson Loading IR in the dark.<br />

I tested the SFX 200 with the Gel in the gate of the<br />

435 and thought that it did give a good IR effect.<br />

See the frame grabs on the website :-)<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Page 499


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Interaction with Directors<br />

Excuse me, but I'm getting a little confused.<br />

I know that the Director of Photography is<br />

responsible for the images. And the Director the<br />

Performance. I also know that the Director of the<br />

film has approval of the frame.<br />

However isn't the image supposed to be a<br />

collaborative effort? Isn't it the job of the D.P. to<br />

contribute to the story telling process, and not just<br />

compose and light "pretty pictures"?<br />

I am really just beginning to shoot for people. I've<br />

found so far that some directors aren't really good<br />

at communicating why they want something<br />

framed a certain way. I think that inability hurts<br />

them as directors, but they are green, as am I.<br />

When we do understand each other I find that I'm<br />

more comfortable with the image, and I feel able to<br />

enhance the shot even more, in a way the director<br />

likes. I know that there are some really bad<br />

Directors, who for whatever reason won't share<br />

information with anyone, they just want it done<br />

their way with no input from anyone else. I would<br />

hope that at some level, these directors become<br />

the exception, and not the rule.<br />

Page 500


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Forgive me if I seem obtuse, as I said I am only<br />

working on small really independent projects, for<br />

now. I thought it was the "Directors" picture, not<br />

ours.<br />

We should have input, and so far the directors I've<br />

enjoyed working with, always were conferring with<br />

me, but if we (as DP’s or Camerapeople) don't<br />

understand the Directors aesthetic, or their<br />

reasoning on framing, then isn't it our fault as<br />

much as the directors?<br />

Steven<br />

All true,<br />

But many directors out there do not have complete<br />

confidence in their DP/operator or sometimes not<br />

that much, or possibly too much, confidence in<br />

them selves. It is usually more touchy the first few<br />

days with a new director but after a short while I<br />

find that understanding of each other's<br />

requirements and trust is easily established.<br />

If a director still does not trust an obviously<br />

capable DP/operator after a few days I thinks he is<br />

Page 501


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the one with the problem. I worked a quite a while<br />

back with a director. He was a very nice guy but<br />

from his behavior and attitude on the set we could<br />

tell that if he could have done all the shoot all by<br />

myself and take all the credit, he would have. He<br />

was endlessly making, mostly, unwarranted<br />

comments about framing, getting really technical<br />

with the lighting aspects and generally getting on<br />

everyone's nerves.<br />

Directors who don't understand and develop the<br />

sense that it's a team effort based on fluid<br />

communications between a few key players will<br />

never be fully happy with their results and make<br />

everyone miserable in the process. Just as DPs have<br />

to understand the complicity between themselves<br />

the grips, electric’s and AC's.<br />

Daniel Villeneuve<br />

IMHO: As far as Producers and the financial guys in<br />

suits are concerned it is the Director who is<br />

ultimately responsible for the film in its entirety.<br />

Provided he/she has a reasonable degree of<br />

Page 502


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

inherent trust in the DP, a wise Director will work<br />

to form a collaborative relationship.<br />

The resulting films tend to be just that much<br />

stronger.<br />

However, when all is said and done, it is important<br />

to remember that any flaws in the resulting film<br />

will be attributed to the Director first and foremost.<br />

The best Directors have a solid command of all<br />

cinematic tools including lens selection,<br />

composition, camera movement & the application<br />

of lighting in a dramatic or comedic sense. When a<br />

Director has been saddled with a DP he/she has<br />

little faith in, the Director would be performing an<br />

act of professional suicide, and would be negligent<br />

in his/her responsibilities to the Producers and<br />

financiers, by failing to take control of these<br />

issues.<br />

It seems to me that the optimum situation is<br />

always one where the Director and DP have<br />

established significant trust in each other overtime.<br />

In the real world however Directors and DPs are<br />

constantly working at forging new relationships<br />

and that's one of the more interesting aspects of<br />

the business. There is usually something new you<br />

can learn about your craft from the other guy!<br />

Page 503


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mike Siegel<br />

Of course it is a collaborative effort - that's part of<br />

the fun, if you enjoy interaction with people. There<br />

are no real exact boundaries, except that most<br />

directors do not get involved in technical detail<br />

relating to cinematography (like taking meter<br />

readings - but I'm sure someone has met an<br />

exception.) While the D.P. is responsible for the<br />

image, the director is responsible for the whole<br />

movie - which includes the image. So we work for<br />

the director.<br />

But there are as many types of directors as there<br />

are people. Some have little skill in visual<br />

storytelling - and some think they do, but don't.<br />

Ozzie Morris once spoke about the two types of<br />

directors that he's worked with: the one that leaves<br />

a lot up to the cinematographer and the one who<br />

controls every aspect of the production. He said<br />

both types can be enjoyable (more enjoyable with<br />

the first type), but if the second type is very<br />

artistic, very intelligent, and well-prepared, it can<br />

be more rewarding experience. Certainly John<br />

Page 504


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Alcott learned a lot when he worked for Kubrick,<br />

even if he also liked NOT working for Kubrick so<br />

that he could apply what he had learned on other<br />

films.<br />

I would love to do a movie with a director that was<br />

such a visual genius that I could learn something<br />

from him. The reality is that I've met very few good<br />

directors, at least on the visual end. But as long as<br />

they are talented with actors and writers, and are<br />

well-prepared yet flexible, then I don't mind being<br />

more in control of the visuals.<br />

Ultimately, it's the director's movie. I want him or<br />

her to be proud of the final product and feel that it<br />

represents their personal vision.<br />

Hopefully, my aesthetics will coincide with the<br />

director's and I can feel that the final film<br />

represents my vision also. If we absolutely don't<br />

see things the same way, then maybe he should<br />

have hired someone else. I can bend my approach<br />

to suit most directors, but if I'm absolutely<br />

convinced that his ideas are wrong and damaging,<br />

then I have to tell him.<br />

If he can't justify his decisions to me, then I start<br />

thinking about how to get off the film. But I haven't<br />

had to do that yet - I'm pretty good at talking to<br />

directors and coming to a consensus.<br />

Page 505


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

David Mullen<br />

Well, nearly. <br />

I agree with what you say. But some directors are<br />

amazingly poor at communicating what they want,<br />

and you practically have to be telepathic.<br />

Also I believe that not a few directors don't really<br />

know what they want until they see it. In this case<br />

even telepathy can't help you - something more<br />

akin to clairvoyance is what is required!<br />

But I always try and draw out as much as I can in<br />

terms of visual reference, be it film, photography,<br />

paintings, graphic art, comics, anything, before<br />

starting to shoot, and trying to deduce and<br />

construct some sort of aesthetic for the project, if<br />

nothing more cut and dried is offered up. What<br />

pleases me most is when I do this and the director<br />

approves, or if I can improve(in their terms) on a<br />

visual aesthetic which has already been defined. I<br />

do think that there really isn't much point in trying<br />

to shoot in a style of which they disapprove. This<br />

generally leads to much argument and sometimes<br />

Page 506


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

early retirement! I think you can try to move them<br />

in a particular direction if you truly believe the<br />

project merits and warrants it, but you *must*<br />

convince them by argument as well as example.<br />

But I think most directors engage DoP's (and<br />

operators, here in the UK) on the basis of what they<br />

can bring to a project in terms of a visual aesthetic.<br />

Even if they have a strong vision to start with, the<br />

DoP, camera operator(if he/she is allowed) art<br />

department, actors, in fact anyone on a set where<br />

contributions are encouraged, can enhance the<br />

aesthetic.<br />

For m e, co-operation and discussion is very<br />

important, and although I've done my fair share as<br />

a 'dolly jockey', I much prefer projects where there<br />

is an intelligent and co-operative attitude towards<br />

the work in hand.<br />

Where this atmosphere prevails, no-one feels<br />

discouraged from making suggestions, and knows<br />

they'll be seriously considered and used(or not) if<br />

they are in the best interests of the film.<br />

Chris<br />

Page 507


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Invoices<br />

What length of time is standard from sending off<br />

an invoice to receiving payment?<br />

How long would you generally wait before getting<br />

back in touch?<br />

What would you then do, send another invoice, a<br />

polite phone call...??<br />

Any thoughts and ideas appreciated.<br />

---<br />

Rab Harling<br />

When I send in an invoice, it depends on whether it<br />

was for equipment I rented or for services<br />

rendered. For equipment rented I usually try to get<br />

payment in full upon return of the equipment.<br />

Most companies I deal with are ok with this. For<br />

those that aren't, I give them the requisite 30 days<br />

net. For services rendered (model making, rigging,<br />

etc) it's usually 1/3 up front, 1/3 upon delivery,<br />

Page 508


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

1/3 in 30 days. Again most companies are ok with<br />

this relatively standard time schedule.<br />

Ok, so for the other bad boy companies that take<br />

their time..... I've found that a phone call after 1<br />

months time almost always gets the check out. I<br />

will ask them at that time ""when can I expect the<br />

check"" and if I sense something amiss I'll ask for<br />

some honesty with ""is there a problem with the<br />

invoice"". For well run professional companies<br />

paying bills is done on time.... it's just good<br />

business to maintain good working relations with<br />

your suppliers and they know it.... they stop paying<br />

I find because they themselves have a financial<br />

problem.<br />

And then again there are, always have been and<br />

probably always will be those companies who seem<br />

to do everything they can to keep your money as<br />

long as they can. I think their philosophy goes<br />

something like this.....<br />

Why pay to piss someone off when you can do it<br />

for free.<br />

Peter Weiss<br />

Page 509


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Justin’s guide to getting your money and sitting on<br />

it ...<br />

Invoice ... (stating 30 days, make sure you have all<br />

the info on it) after 30 days ... call up very nice and<br />

friendly ask ""Did I invoice you for such and such a<br />

job ?""<br />

Make out that it could possibly be your fault.<br />

Of course it won't be BUT you can make sure.<br />

1. They have your invoice<br />

2. It has been signed off by the producer.<br />

3. See no2 above .. you therefore have no<br />

dispute with the producer.<br />

as long as there is no dispute. You can politely<br />

remind them that the account is overdue and<br />

could they please pay it quickly. If there is still no<br />

cheque after another 5 working days.<br />

Then you can reasonably call them up and ask why<br />

you haven't been paid. If you fancy the hassle<br />

then you can ask when it would be convenient to<br />

Page 510


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

come and collect the cheque. If you don't want to<br />

actually go and collect the cheque ... (which I think<br />

is a pretty sad state of affairs anyway.)<br />

Then a letter form the Union usually helps a bit.<br />

If all these fail ... then basically your relationship<br />

with the production company is over.<br />

Justin<br />

A good move is to ask the production<br />

accountant/manager up front, what are their<br />

terms regarding contractors invoic es. Thirty days is<br />

a reasonable amount of time to have elapsed<br />

before making enquiries I feel - after that, maybe<br />

fax off a copy of the original with a friendly<br />

reminder written across it.<br />

Another idea is to call and say that you're not<br />

certain if you mailed it to them which happens<br />

more as I get older ;-) and to check to make sure<br />

it's in their system. Here's a good moment to drop<br />

a reminder.<br />

Page 511


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

BTW, I called an accountant at a particular<br />

production office yesterday to ask about an<br />

invoice that is more than 79 days overdue. She told<br />

me that she will be opening the office mail shortly,<br />

and if any cheques have come in for them, she will<br />

try and pay me in the next two weeks. This not the<br />

way it is most of the time I'm pleased to say.<br />

PdV<br />

I usually invoice a production company on a thirty<br />

day basis, with the following tag line featured<br />

prominently on the bottom of the invoice:<br />

Invoice is payable and due upon receipt. Invoices<br />

not paid by XX/XX/XX (30 days after invoice date)<br />

will be subject to a 10% (ten percent) service<br />

charge of $XX.XX.<br />

Then, if I don't receive the cash by the end of thirty<br />

days, I simply call the prod. co. and ask about the<br />

invoice they received... and when they hem and<br />

haw, I simply fax off a new invoice with the<br />

Page 512


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

additional service charge attached... works every<br />

time...<br />

The easiest defence in this situation is to say, look,<br />

if you didn't pay your phone bill on time, would the<br />

phone company let you float for a few more days<br />

free?<br />

just my $.02<br />

phil<br />

I now do most of my work on payroll rather than<br />

invoice, but when I do invoice for my services I<br />

generally invoice separately for expenses as ""due<br />

on receipt"" and for my services ""net 30 days""<br />

with a penalty of 1 1/2% per month after that,<br />

which I believe is the max allowable here in the<br />

USA<br />

At 30 days I generate another invoice showing the<br />

new total which usually scares up a check for the<br />

original total. I don't push to get the 1.5 %...I know<br />

Page 513


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I am unique, but most producers consider my<br />

services to be a commodity they can purchase any<br />

number of places and I cannot afford to scream<br />

about 1.5% and lose the client's good will. Every<br />

once in a while a client who has not paid in the first<br />

30 days just pays the penalty without protest.<br />

weird!<br />

Mark<br />

It is not the end-all to timely payment problems,<br />

but I am a firm believer in the art of the Deal<br />

Memo, no matter what kind of project you are<br />

working on.<br />

If you have an Agent it is the agent's job to ensure<br />

these bases are covered.<br />

If you don't have an agent, there is no reason why<br />

you can't draft an acceptable Deal Memo yourself.<br />

This also allows you to document other addenda<br />

such as per diem, release of your work, travel,<br />

contingencies, etc. (all of which are of course<br />

Page 514


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

negotiable). In my experience, it is always best to<br />

address these issues up front. If an employer<br />

doesn't agree with terms and payment schedules,<br />

the contract gives them an added impetus to<br />

address the issues before the job begins.<br />

sample Deal Memo point:<br />

3. I will bill by invoice, and first half payment<br />

is due upon completion of photography, final half<br />

payment will be made on or before . . . .<br />

-Mark Simon<br />

I am afraid that the companies that owe me money<br />

from long jobs all had deal memos...they don't<br />

contest that they owe me the money...they just<br />

claim that they don't have any.<br />

I have not experienced a difference in problems<br />

getting paid between my ""handshake"" jobs and<br />

my ""Deal Memo"" jobs. For the years that I worked<br />

in NY as a gaffer I did a lot of short jobs for which I<br />

would show up with a crew and a grip truck based<br />

Page 515


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

solely on a conversation with a UPM I didn't know,<br />

a faxed call sheet, and a faxed copy of a proof of<br />

insurance from the production company.<br />

The vast majority of the clients we met this way<br />

paid us on time (or nearly so) and called us again,<br />

and many recommended us to their friends.<br />

While I am not suggesting that a Deal Memo is in<br />

any way a bad thing, and while I firmly believe that<br />

getting the terms of an agreement down on paper<br />

can circumvent much adrenaline-raising<br />

disputation later, I want to caution anyone against<br />

the mistaken belief that a piece of paper will get<br />

you paid when they don't want to pay<br />

you...contracts work well with parties that are<br />

hones t with each other and not so well otherwise. I<br />

will say that when it starts feeling funny and you<br />

start hearing plausible excuses for why checks are<br />

bouncing or not showing up, you are probably<br />

about to get screwed. I have only ever bounced<br />

one check in my entire life, and that was a bank<br />

error not mine. I have only had one payment check<br />

bounce on me that was immediately rectified...in<br />

every other case there were long, drawn-out<br />

scenarios surrounding our finally getting our<br />

money.<br />

Page 516


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I used to worry about the perception of not<br />

""trusting"" producers who had good excuses...I<br />

now figure that at the point that I am not paid on<br />

time or paid with a bad check, the producer has<br />

lost any claim on my trust whatsoever...I probably<br />

won't work with him or her again anyway, and I am<br />

more interested in getting my money, my crew's<br />

money, and my company money than I am about<br />

inadvertently insulting a producer by causing him<br />

or her to lose face.<br />

There is a real problem with small production<br />

companies which often get stuck in a cash-poor<br />

situation because they have to pay us and their big<br />

behemoth of a client is late in paying them.<br />

Notorious 400lb (182kg) gorillas in my past include<br />

AT&T, IBM, GM, and Bell Telephone. My feeling has<br />

always been that if a producer is up front about the<br />

fact that they can't pay me until they deliver the<br />

product and I agree to do the job, so be it. If they<br />

complain later to me about this problem I have no<br />

sympathy. I always end up explaining that my<br />

suppliers and landlords won't cut me any slack and<br />

etc etc etc blah blah blah.<br />

Page 517


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

PS My apparent ""sloppiness"" in going to work<br />

without a signed deal memo has been pointed out<br />

as an indication of my naivete and hopeless<br />

optimism about human nature in general and<br />

producers in particular. On balance I do not think I<br />

have been burned any more than my more<br />

suspicious ""negative"" co-workers have ...but my<br />

naive view of the world is easier on me. :-)<br />

It is not uncommon for a contractor to bill 1.5% per<br />

month (18% annual) interest for late payment in<br />

excess of 30 days on a 30 day net invoice. This is<br />

no different than what a doctor or dentist would<br />

charge on a late bill. As an ""employee"" on a time<br />

card (in the US) technically the employer has 24<br />

hours to pay for services rendered. Typically one<br />

week grace is given until the Thursday or Friday on<br />

the following week, allowing the employer of<br />

record adequate time to process payroll. The<br />

bottom line is if an employer can't pay in a timely<br />

Page 518


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

manner the only thing you can do is make sure you<br />

are covered contractually if you need to press the<br />

matter from a legal standpoint. Generally, a<br />

producer will not sign a deal memo if they<br />

anticipate a problem paying you in a timely<br />

manner. I can almost guarantee that they won't<br />

book you on a Pay or Play unless they have been<br />

awarded a job and have firm confirmation on the<br />

dates.<br />

-Mark Simon<br />

this topic is interesting. The thought occurs to me<br />

wondering why we don't start taking Visa and<br />

MasterCard.<br />

Here's the idea....<br />

Sign a deal memo outlining the exact payment for<br />

the shoot. The deal memo should have on it the<br />

credit card number of the person who is paying.<br />

Before the shoot call the credit card company to<br />

verify the card is good. After the shoot, simply<br />

Page 519


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

submit the card number for payment. If the<br />

producer balks then you have the deal memo to<br />

back up your side of the story.<br />

Drawbacks are a bit more delay in payment and a<br />

credit card surcharge as a vendor. But if you are<br />

stuck with folks not paying or paying several<br />

months late then this might be a way to solve the<br />

problem.<br />

I'm seeing a bunch of corporations who are<br />

beginning to REQUIRE that their vendors accept<br />

credit cards as payment.<br />

-JR Allen<br />

Page 520


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jokes<br />

Once we had a 1st who kept borrowing others<br />

tools. Arrgh! We took his measuring tape(a steel<br />

25' ) and trimmed it to 7'. He goes speeding off<br />

and BAM. Like a Trout in a stream.<br />

Does anyone else have some good Practical<br />

jokes? I pull out a few if I think the time is right. I<br />

have an exploding sharpie pen....perfect for that<br />

tense moment on a lowbudget movie. Also, a<br />

pretty good looking Prime lens made out of PVC<br />

plumbing parts, painted black with lens markings<br />

and loaded up with Plexiglas "lens" parts.<br />

Great to drop and freak everyone out. Not for every<br />

gig of course...<br />

Anyone else?<br />

Kurt Rauf<br />

Page 521


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Please excuse the run-on sentence that follows, it's<br />

necessary for the mood of the gag.<br />

I've found that if you take about 3 feet of raw<br />

stock, tape the ends together to form a loop<br />

(emulsion side out), then tuck about 6 inches of<br />

the taped part inside the lower part of a mag<br />

Barney so the loop of about 1 foot dangles from<br />

the mag, and then tell the assistant that you heard<br />

strange noises during the last take, you should be<br />

prepared to call 911 or know CPR.<br />

An alternate take is to just do it and then stand<br />

back and observe as it's discovered. I've noted that<br />

the standard response is for the A.C. to first look<br />

around to see if anyone else noticed it, then pull<br />

the Barney.<br />

Jerry (give and take) Wolfe<br />

P.S., this is not recommended if your A.C. is<br />

large/vengeful/the producers kid.<br />

Page 522


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

When I was a loader, the focus puller on a film<br />

decided to have some fun on April Fool's day. The<br />

cameraman was in on the game and went with it. I<br />

was instructed to load 100' of gash stock into the<br />

take-up side of a 535 mag and keep this mag at<br />

hand on set. After the first scene of the day was in<br />

the can, there was a reload and the focus puller<br />

was checking the gate.<br />

Quietly he pulled the mag of exposed film off the<br />

camera and replaced it with my mag of gash.<br />

Nobody on set was paying attention as they were<br />

all thinking about the next scene; that is until the<br />

focus puller started having difficulty with the<br />

camera. As he was clearly struggling with the film<br />

in the gate, the cameraman, 1st Ad, directors (they<br />

were twins) started crowding around concerned<br />

that there might be a problem with the difficult<br />

scene we had just filmed. Just as the tension was<br />

reaching its peak, the focus puller feigned losing<br />

his grip and knocked the loosened catch on the<br />

mag allowing all the 'exposed' film to come<br />

spooling out onto the set floor. Everyone turned to<br />

me in horror and I had to admit that that was the<br />

already exposed film lying in a pathetic heap on<br />

the floor. The expressions on the directors' and<br />

actors' faces are ones that I will take to my grave<br />

Page 523


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

with me. Fortunately as we were already five weeks<br />

into the shoot and everybody was very happy with<br />

the results so far, the joke was taken with good<br />

humour.<br />

Tim Palmer<br />

I once taped the clapper closed on a sound take in<br />

response to some practical jokes going around. It<br />

was an intense bar fight on a smoked set, with<br />

Kevin Bacon and another guy all wet down for<br />

sweat and posed in punches for the close ups.<br />

Camera rolled and "marker" was called. But the<br />

slate was taped shut and wouldn't open. Camera<br />

was cut and my friend and I laughed at the<br />

embarrassed 2nd AC pulling the tape off the slate.<br />

The director got ticked and asked us to leave the<br />

set and when we went outside we encountered the<br />

sound man with his speakers up full and about 100<br />

locals listening to the entire scene. We were a little<br />

embarrassed.<br />

But the next day Mary Steenburgen, who was<br />

producing the film, came up and told me she was<br />

Page 524


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

very upset with me. Expecting to be reamed out, I<br />

started to apologize when she said she was upset<br />

that we didn't let her in on the joke beforehand.<br />

She thought it was very funny and from now on to<br />

let her know of any good practical jokes going on.<br />

They're fun but often at someone's expense. One<br />

must be careful.<br />

Regards,<br />

Jim S.<br />

OK . . . . here's a few more. When I was a Second<br />

AC once while slating, I accidentally knocked a<br />

burning cigar our actor's mouth. Just about the<br />

time I was feeling two inches tall, the First AC turns<br />

to me and says, "Don't worry about it, I knocked a<br />

bottle of ink into William Holdens lap once!" God<br />

Bless<br />

Ya, Pete Kuttner!<br />

The best and cruellest trick ever played on a Best<br />

Boy by his Gaffer (I know I have told this before) . .<br />

. . While at lunch, the Gaffer puts one of those clip-<br />

on reflector units that you generally put a standard<br />

Page 525


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

screw in light bulb into behind every HMI in the<br />

studio. The rub is . . . in every one of the clip-ons,<br />

he screws in one of those magnesium flash bulbs<br />

that look like standard household bulbs (you know,<br />

the ones that cost about 10 bucks a piece). We get<br />

back to the set from lunch, and the AD yells, "We're<br />

Back, Light'm Up." The Best Boy throws the master<br />

bull switch, and it looks like he has blown every<br />

globe in the house in the process, drops to his<br />

knees like a lightning bolt and pulls out his meters<br />

. . . you can guess what the expression was when<br />

he figured out the joke was on him.<br />

Last one . . . a grip falls asleep on the set wearing<br />

his sun glasses. His fellow grips seizing the<br />

opportunity, slip his glasses off and covers the<br />

lenses with black tape, and put them back on him .<br />

. . still asleep, the Key Grip hollers, "Will someone<br />

PLEASE get me a C-stand!" I swear he thought he<br />

was blind for an instant. –<br />

Mark Simon<br />

Page 526


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

A friend of mine once had a fellow doing a "Making<br />

Of" of his shoot who had the habit of leaving the<br />

video "Making Of" camera on the floor in a corner<br />

where he thought it was out of the way and going<br />

off for a cup of coffee.<br />

During one of these absences, the special effects<br />

guy glued a black tape onto the video lens in the<br />

shape of a crack. When the guy came back and<br />

turned on the camera to shoot, he was appalled.<br />

However, instead of looking at the lens, he put his<br />

finger on and had the misfortune to miss the tape.<br />

He then proceeded in panic to white and black<br />

balance the camera, try all of the camera filters, the<br />

genlock and phase buttons and anything else that<br />

could be pushed on the camera. Every so often, the<br />

DoP would wander by and shake his head in<br />

"consternation".<br />

Finally, after about 15 minutes of agony, he<br />

noticed that some members of the crew were<br />

having trouble trying to hide their laughter. Then<br />

it finally occurred to him to check the front of the<br />

lens.<br />

Bruce Douglas<br />

Page 527


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Meanest trick I've heard of. 1st AC friend of mine<br />

goes into the darkroom during lunch and notices<br />

loaded/exposed mag sitting on table to be<br />

downloaded.<br />

He downloads the mag and crams a bunch of film<br />

from the scrape bin into the mag. Retapes the<br />

magazine so that it looks still loaded. The loader<br />

comes back after lunch with the most sheepish<br />

look on his face.<br />

Bret<br />

I heard this one from a Gaffer who said he used to<br />

work at the old General Camera.<br />

A Panaflex mag comes back at the end of a feature<br />

with the word "chatters" in big red letters on<br />

camera tape stuck to the mag.<br />

As soon as the check-in techs open the magazine<br />

they hear the chattering noise. It is a pair of those<br />

wind up teeth, chattering away.<br />

Page 528


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

When I was a student I had the opportunity to<br />

watch Ivan Strasburg light a shoot with Mike<br />

McShane (a very large Canadian comedian). Half<br />

way through the afternoon the gaffer brought me a<br />

polaroid camera, of the sort that feed the picture<br />

out of the front as soon as the picture is taken, and<br />

told me that the make up artist had asked him to<br />

take a still of Mr McShane, but that he didn't feel<br />

he had the necessary photographic skill to do the<br />

job properly, and would I mind? Of course I was<br />

only too pleased to help, and so I took the camera<br />

and asked Mr McShane to come and stand in the<br />

light to get a good likeness. Just before I took the<br />

picture the gaffer reminded me that the picture<br />

needed to be a biggish close-up, so I leant a little<br />

closer and pressed the button. Out of the camera,<br />

right in Mr McShane's face appeared a big close up<br />

alright, but of the gaffer's hairy, and very white,<br />

arse. Mr McShane looked closely at it for a couple<br />

of seconds before muttering "Damn, these British<br />

makeup artists can't do anything right. The script<br />

Page 529


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

says I'm supposed to have a tan."<br />

Chris Merry<br />

One day when I was an AC, I was prepping a<br />

camera at a rental house, and my second came in<br />

to load the mags for the next day. The prep tech<br />

at the rental house thought he was being cute<br />

when he told the 2nd that there was a really bad<br />

light leak in the darkroom after she loaded all the<br />

mags. So living up to the old adage of don't get<br />

mad . . . get even, I thought I would get him with<br />

the gag light meter routine which was half of a<br />

ping pong ball glued to black foam rubber, the<br />

spitting image of a Spectra. Seizing the just the<br />

right moment, his back to me while he was writing<br />

up the order, I yelled, "hey Joe, can you hold on to<br />

this for me?" I proceeded to toss the meter in the<br />

air.<br />

He turns with astonishment and drops the 6X6<br />

filter he is holding, which of course shatters into a<br />

million pieces.<br />

Page 530


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

It turns out that the filter was sub rented, and I had<br />

to call Denny Clairmont and explain how the filter<br />

got broken . . . $250 later, the joke was on me, and<br />

that was the last time anyone ever saw the most<br />

expensive gag light meter!<br />

-Mark Simon<br />

I once did a picture with a DP who shot an<br />

excessive amount of Polaroid’s for every scene in<br />

the movie. Bored with this practice, I took a white<br />

showcard and wrote in big bold letters *TRY 2.8* . .<br />

. I underexposed it by a stop and left it in the<br />

camera so he would double expose it when making<br />

his evaluation . . . he wasn't amused, but it was<br />

rather funny at the time! -<br />

Mark Simon<br />

Page 531


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

One of our favorite tricks is to take the pocket<br />

"happy snap" camera, foolishly left lying about by<br />

one of the married crew members. You "borrow' it<br />

whilst the said crew member is otherwise busy, and<br />

sneak off behind the set to run off some quick<br />

snaps of a willing female crewmember's breasts<br />

and arse, no face, of course. Then you sneak the<br />

camera back into the rightful owner's place of<br />

safekeeping.<br />

Then you wait, giggling at the thought of him<br />

asking his wife, "Honey, while you are out, could<br />

you please pick up the processing I dropped off<br />

yesterday?" And of course you know she is going<br />

to check out the photos on the way home! Great<br />

fun! Best to be off the set on a run for whatever,<br />

when he arrives the morning after!<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

When I visit sets these days, it all seems to be long<br />

faces, with the fear that if anyone actually has the<br />

temerity to laugh or to be happy, he will be sacked<br />

on the spot. A few practical joke from the past:<br />

Page 532


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

When I started in the labs (well in the sound dept<br />

actually) I was sent off to stores for a Long Weight.<br />

Now I knew that weights were hung on the side of<br />

the processing machines to maintain correct<br />

tension so I naturally assumed that I had been sent<br />

to collect one of these. So I waited, and waited, and<br />

waited..... I was victim No. 35 on this one!<br />

On a BBC drama series, there was one particular<br />

actor who insisted on always looking through the<br />

camera, much to the annoyance of the DP. We<br />

cured this one by closing the shutter and smearing<br />

the eyepiece with black makeup. Obviously, he<br />

couldn’t see a thing so I explained that you had to<br />

rotate the eyepiece to open the shutter.... He went<br />

through a complete rehearsal, no realising while<br />

the whole crew - including the director - were<br />

killing themselves laughing at him.<br />

A couple of sound ones (well, we all work together,<br />

don't we?) We were shooting a film of a lecture<br />

given by the late Sir Alexander Pilkington (of the<br />

Pilkington Glass Works - a huge British company)<br />

After the main shoot we asked the client to help us<br />

out with a buzz track. We carefully explained that<br />

we needed a continuous sound to go into the<br />

background and smooth over any edit points. So<br />

far, so good. The sound recordist then got him to<br />

Page 533


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

don a lapel mic and make a buzzing sound, thus<br />

'Buzzzzzzzz' Naturally, he wan't having it, he knew<br />

us only too well! So I explained to him that we<br />

weren't kidding, that the sound would be put<br />

through a pink noise filter to randomise it. Being a<br />

Scientist he fell for it hook, line and sinker!<br />

There he stood, in the middle of the lecture<br />

theatre going 'Buzzzzz' for all he was worth. But<br />

the recordist shook his head, 'No, it needs to go up<br />

higher.' Our client immediately got the picture and<br />

proceeded to Buzz one octave higher. 'Cut!' By<br />

now, I chirped in the fact that Sir Alister had been<br />

on a stage (since struck) and that the echoes were<br />

therefore different.<br />

So we then had the client standing on a chair,<br />

buzzing away, blissfully unaware that the crew<br />

were creeping out of the room! Only two other<br />

comments, this is quite true, and for some<br />

unexplained reason, none of us have worked for<br />

Pilkington Glass ever since.<br />

Brian Rose<br />

Page 534


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Krasnagorsk<br />

I have been seeing ads for a K-3 16mm camera for<br />

really cheap and am now wondering if it is a semi<br />

good camera for the low price of below $1000.<br />

My budget is really limited and I am wondering if I<br />

should get that camera or wait and save my money<br />

for later when I can afford another camera.<br />

Mathias Elgh<br />

I think that the K3 is the same Russian made<br />

camera I saw in Moscow last year. I had a look at<br />

one there, they were asking something like $100<br />

for it, it looks a lot like the old Bolex's but not as<br />

well built. Haven't seen any film shot with one.<br />

You have to wonder who will fix it when/if it breaks<br />

and if parts will be available, considering the state<br />

of the Russian economy.<br />

I'd wait till I had more money for something more<br />

well known and proven.<br />

Page 535


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

James Neihouse<br />

There's a group called Reel Trading in New York<br />

that sells and repairs them. The packages they sell<br />

are several hundred dollars, but they have been<br />

modified to eliminate a faulty autoloading system<br />

and properly calibrated. Reel Trading has a Web<br />

page:<br />

http://www.concentric.net/~Jdq/reeltrading.<br />

htm<br />

It seems that very few of the cameras are properly<br />

calibrated out of the factory, and they jam easily<br />

unless they've been modified. Once the<br />

modification is done, you have the equivalent of a<br />

decent reflex Bolex, without the same lens options<br />

(it has a different screw mount--I'm not sure what<br />

it is).<br />

I've used it myself, but if I were buying a camera in<br />

that range, I would rather have a Bolex.<br />

Chris Ray<br />

Page 536


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I couldn't agree more about the Bolex....I have been<br />

to Hell and back a dozen times with a Bolex, and<br />

they have never let me down yet....<br />

Kevin Bassett<br />

Surely agreed. The Bolex _is_ my favorite camera<br />

for short-run MOS work. I really am impressed with<br />

the quality of workmanship on the things, enough<br />

that a good one is more stable than some pin-<br />

registered cameras I have owned. Admittedly,<br />

though, most of the lenses being used with them<br />

are pretty dreadful, and the prism arrangement<br />

makes it impossible to for me to use many of my<br />

favorite lenses. But seeing that you can find a<br />

Bolex Reflex for less than $500, it's hard to beat it.<br />

Skip the Krassie, and get me some Sovcolor stock!<br />

Is anyone importing the Agfa-style stocks from the<br />

eastern bloc, and arranging processing for them?<br />

Until about ten years ago, you could get the Agfa<br />

Page 537


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

reversal stocks and chemistry still, but when the<br />

reversal market died they pulled out. A shame, as<br />

the ball-and-chain coupler chemistry always gave<br />

me a very clean and subtle pastel shading that I<br />

miss.<br />

Scott Dorsey<br />

There was chatter about the Krasnogorsk-3 camera<br />

on this mailing list recently.<br />

NCS Products maintains a web page with<br />

information about this camera.<br />

You can find it<br />

at................http://members.aol.com/k3camer<br />

a/index.htm<br />

Page 538


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Latensification<br />

Hypersensitizing doesn't give you much of a film<br />

speed increase, but it does give you a vast<br />

reduction in reciprocity failure. This is a big issue<br />

if you are photographing comets with hour-long<br />

exposures and clockwork pointing mechanisms,<br />

but it doesn't buy you much at 24 fps.<br />

There are all sorts of different recipes.... a<br />

pressurized hydrogen/helium<br />

mixture is popular, as are mercury vapor and<br />

ammonia. Each have advantages and<br />

disadvantages but none of them really are useful<br />

for cine work.<br />

--Scott<br />

I've based this on a piece by David Vestal and Ralph<br />

Steiner from a forthcoming book. Their line is that<br />

the only way to keep the threshold exposure low<br />

enough is to do it very very slowly, and, of course,<br />

only after exposure -- never before. 7 to 15<br />

minutes, 10 feet from a very very dark (they<br />

Page 539


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

suggested a green safelight filter over a 7.5w bulb<br />

with a black mask.<br />

Then there is the other technique, Concurrent<br />

Photon Amplification, which was discussed in Pop<br />

Photo in the 70s. Involved tiny tiny lamps at the<br />

film plane that exposed the film right as you shot.<br />

I actually built this into a CP for testing, which<br />

showed promise, but since we were able to shoot<br />

7250 instead of 7247 for the film in question, it<br />

became a moot point.<br />

I believe that Deluxe General's AL400 system was<br />

just a big room with rollers and a dim lamp, that<br />

the film cruised through on its way to the<br />

processing machine. Anyone here ever use it?<br />

>Also, anyone know anything about<br />

hypersensitising? It's a technique of<br />

>exposing the rawstock before exposure to a gas<br />

(Helium?). A colleague<br />

>tried it to shoot Halley's comet some years back.<br />

But the comet was such<br />

>a fizzer, all the helium in the world couldn't help.<br />

It is written up in many Astronomy magazines, but<br />

the problem is that the film must be loosely<br />

wound, so cine film is a problem. It's done with<br />

gas (forget which, but not helium) and in the old<br />

days it was done with -- eek! -- mercury vapors.<br />

Page 540


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Apparently it works well, but must be done in<br />

advance. Also, might not keep well after hyping.<br />

Anyone else have other info?<br />

Jeff "hyped up himself" Kreines<br />

The gas is Hydrogen. There was an article in<br />

Scientific American Magazine in the late 70's (???)<br />

which described the process. I tried it at the time<br />

with some B&W emulsion - and can say that it<br />

works....but was more bother than it was worth.<br />

Paul Gaffney<br />

I was recently told that it takes Three photons to<br />

Activate a grain of silver.<br />

Of course this has to be a generalization as Film (<br />

color film anyway) is made up of ten different<br />

layers. with three different layers for for each of<br />

the colors. A slow , medium, and fast.<br />

Page 541


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Latensification sounds like just an extremely low<br />

level flash. Is it only for Black and white? Does<br />

there make a difference Pre or Post exposure?<br />

Steven ( Nit picking over three photons) Gladstone<br />

If it gets much less than 3, we'll have the quantum<br />

physicists after us.<br />

Never mind about the speed of each layer. The<br />

faster emulsion layers have larger grains in them<br />

(strictly crystals of AgBr, not grains yet). Being<br />

larger, they present a larger surface area to the<br />

stream of photons, and collect more direct hits<br />

sooner. 6 (or 3) photons is enough for any crystal,<br />

however big.<br />

That's why fast films are grainier.<br />

I've learnt (since my last posting, and thanks to<br />

Walls & Attridge, Basic Photo Science, Focal Press)<br />

that latensification in normal photography is done<br />

_after_ the image exposure. The long duration of<br />

15-30 mins at very low intensity takes advantage<br />

of reciprocity failure to minimise the fogging<br />

Page 542


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

effect. 6 photons in less than a second will expose<br />

a grain: 6 (or even more) photons in half an hour<br />

won't, as the effect of the first one has decayed<br />

before the last one arrives. So unexposed film isn't<br />

fogged at all. However, slightly exposed film<br />

already has a few photon captures recorded, so it<br />

only takes a couple more to start the image effect.<br />

But in practice, how effective is it? Anyone know?<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

Explain this to me. As I understood it, what<br />

flashing does essentially is that it raises the toe of<br />

you curve into the latitude, as a straight horizontal<br />

line at, say, 3 1/2 under within the appropriate<br />

exposure time (pre OR post). I have post-flashed<br />

before, but never pre-flashed. I can't understand<br />

why, in theory, pre wouldn't do the same.<br />

Flashing in basically a double-exposure so<br />

what does it matter the order in which both<br />

exposures are taken? In theory, pre and post<br />

should yield the exact same result. No?<br />

Page 543


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Serge Marcotte.<br />

Apparently it does work. Gives perhaps 2 stops<br />

speed gain with no additional grain, which is why I<br />

am interested.<br />

You should do a little test... and tell us all!<br />

--Jeff "that's low LIGHT, not low life" Kreines<br />

I have Pre flashed, I never Post flash. this is based<br />

on tests done with stills. I felt that Post flashing<br />

brought out more grain, even though they were<br />

flashed the same amount. The nice thing about the<br />

stills, was that by happy accident, I had offset the<br />

frames and so only half of each frame was flashed.<br />

Flashed some 7277 in a test once with an<br />

extrem ely low level of CTB ( Accidentally, I meant<br />

for a higher flash). The shoot was tungsten<br />

Page 544


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

balanced. Gave the film a really nice snap though.<br />

Much nicer than unflashed, and certainly better<br />

than the heavier flashes.<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

It's not the same thing as flashing at all. Flashing<br />

increases the base fog and shortens the dynamic<br />

range.<br />

See Dominic Case's excellent explanation to<br />

understand how Latensification works -- it's the<br />

slow exposure that permits the photons to<br />

accumulate and kick over those grains that have<br />

gotten some exposure.<br />

Jeff Kreines<br />

Gentlemen,<br />

have been following this thread. Thanks for<br />

dredging this one up Jeff K. and thanks for<br />

Page 545


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

following it down Dominic- anyone know of a lab<br />

that offers this procedure currently?<br />

2 stops with no fog. But only in the lower blacks,<br />

toe, (ZONES 1-2?)<br />

I wonder what this looks like... anyone suggest a<br />

film known to have undergone this process for a<br />

video rent look see?<br />

Caleb "no plans to build a lab anytime soon"<br />

Crosby<br />

Sounds intriguing, OK for stills, but not really<br />

practical for motion picture. Also, I worked out the<br />

exposure, it's a normal fogging light plus a 4.60ND<br />

filter. (That's a stack of 5 x ND9s then a bit more).<br />

That's about as dark as my darkroom anyway. The<br />

calculation's there, free for anyone who wants to<br />

try.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

Page 546


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

My e-mail has been fouled up for the past 2-1/2<br />

days (local problem) and as a result it can't read<br />

out a good number of the posts that are in the In<br />

box, including several on the latensification<br />

thread. So someone else may have covered the<br />

following:<br />

These are some gleanings on the subject taken<br />

from C. B. Neblett's book, PHOTOGRAPHY<br />

PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES, a 1942 edition (these<br />

techniques seemed to have been more widely<br />

attempted back in those days, due to limited<br />

emulsion speeds.)<br />

Neblette:<br />

Hypersensitizing was done with ammonia,<br />

ammoniacal silver chloride,<br />

mercury, or exposure to a weak source for a period<br />

of 30 min. to 1 hr. after exposure in the camera.<br />

In the case of the ammoniacal silver chloride,<br />

plates were immersed for 2 min. at 65 F, & dried as<br />

quickly as possible w/o heat. Speed increase was<br />

2x to 7x, depending upon the emulsion; slower<br />

emulsions showed greater effect than did faster<br />

emulsions. Treated films would keep only a day or<br />

two before fog began to show.<br />

Page 547


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Exposure to mercury after exposure for 20 to 30<br />

hours at room temp. increased speed 2x - 2-1/2x<br />

varying with emulsion type; some emulsions didn't<br />

respond at all.<br />

Bathing an exposed emulsion in a dilute solution<br />

of hydrogen peroxide for a few minutes at room<br />

temp. increased the speed, but it varied with the<br />

emulsion and the pH, so it was impractical.<br />

After exposure in the camera, an exposure of 30<br />

to 60 min. to light of such an intensity as to<br />

produce a fog density of approx. 0.2 increased the<br />

speed 2x to 4x. The effect was greater on slow<br />

emulsions than on faster ones, and contrast was<br />

reduced, so greater development was needed. The<br />

speed increase was NOT obtained with shorter<br />

times of exposure at greater intensity levels, nor if<br />

done<br />

before camera exposure.<br />

Again, these are of 1942 vintage. They would<br />

seem to be of limited value today, in view of the<br />

fast emulsions and special processes available.<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

Page 548


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

>At 15 minutes per frame exposure?<br />

Well, on a tall continuous rack in its own room,<br />

with lights on both sides, the throughput wouldn't<br />

be all that bad. That's how I'm building mine, if I<br />

ever do. (The room is built... but it's become a bit<br />

of a storage area...)<br />

Brings to mind a lab that decided to do flashing the<br />

cheapo way. The built a chamber onto their<br />

processing machine. It did work, but the speed<br />

variances led to exposure variances...<br />

Jeff "someday someday" Kreines<br />

Jeff,<br />

thanks for the vote of do-ability on latensifying.<br />

The way I figured it if you ran frame one thru the<br />

box at a governed speed and arranged an equitable<br />

light path for the train to follow- it could travel<br />

steadily- if not quickly. (like you say some height<br />

would be important- but that would create a prob.<br />

with the even light path. yes?)<br />

Page 549


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Ideally, I guess it would be long and flat, like a<br />

stretched railcar and go thru several successive<br />

boxes up or down along a wall. say 20 18" X 18"<br />

boxes stacked atop each other - each about what?<br />

50 feet long? depending on what you had more of<br />

to spare, headroom or carpet area.<br />

The flat design would let the light be on top (and<br />

bottom) and remain even- speed then would just<br />

be a function of travel duration. low powered<br />

fluorescent tubes would seem ideal. either that or<br />

lots of sockets.<br />

I'm just speculating but why would this take any<br />

longer than the process bath?<br />

just have to make plenty of long boxes that are<br />

wired and light proof- or light proof the room.<br />

Either that or a centrally located lab, preferably in<br />

Ohio, could install junction boxes (really long 18 x<br />

18's) that follow the phone lines out to several<br />

states- and we could feed our underexposed<br />

footage right out of the changing bag into a spigot<br />

type thingo that would latensify the film en route<br />

(kind of a slow boat to Ohio type deal) and the<br />

lights could be on dimmable system depending on<br />

the mileage incurred. One easy swipe of the bank<br />

card and...<br />

wait, isn't there any way to latensify IN POST??<br />

Page 550


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Vote Crosby in '98 "a lab on every block."<br />

-------------------------------------------<br />

-------------------------------------------<br />

---<br />

I'm just speculating but why would this take any<br />

longer than the process bath?<br />

You're right - it wouldn't. I'm just intrigued by the<br />

low light levels required - enough NOT to fog film<br />

in 15 or 30 minutes. I reckon (real back of an<br />

envelope stuff here) that a _single_ 100W tungsten<br />

lamp would do the job in ten minutes at a distance<br />

of ten metres with a 3.00ND filter. (That's black<br />

with a capital B). Smaller chamber, more filters<br />

needed. Any light leak would spell disaster!<br />

Easier to buy a faster film stock :-)<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

Page 551


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The still people use a 7.5W light bulb, in a safelight<br />

housing, at 10 feet. But there are smaller bulbs<br />

than that...<br />

And there ISN'T a faster stock! We're talking<br />

available darkness!<br />

Jeff "make mine toe" Kreines<br />

>just have to make plenty of long boxes that are<br />

wired and light proof- or<br />

>light proof the room.<br />

Mine is a room 15 feet long, 4 feet wide. Rollers in<br />

the center, very dim lamps at each end.<br />

Depending on whether it's 16mm or 35mm, up to<br />

48 strands, 8 feet tall, so, that's nearly 800 feet of<br />

exposed surface footage.<br />

At a 15 minutes exposure, the speed would be 53<br />

feet per minute. My racks probably will be shorter,<br />

but it's not that bad. This is a personal lab, not<br />

looking to run a lot of volume.<br />

Boxes isn't a great idea, because you really need<br />

some serious distance between the lamp and<br />

bulb. In my case, I was folding the path -- lamp<br />

Page 552


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

right near the film, facing away from the film,<br />

bouncing off a wall and back, for a nicely diffuse<br />

light source from an effective distance of 14 feet<br />

or so.<br />

I'll try and test it, at least with short strips, in the<br />

next 3 months.<br />

Jeff "darkness on the edge of town" Kreines<br />

Years ago, Neblette claimed fast stocks didn't show<br />

much improvement, compared to slower stocks.<br />

Interesting to see if that still holds true with fast<br />

Vision stocks! If 79 can be exposed at EI 2000 or<br />

so with no increase in grain, someone better go<br />

into business latensifying it!<br />

Wade Ramsey<br />

Page 553


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mattes<br />

A friend called me up yesterday and asked me to<br />

post this question.<br />

What happens exactly if you were to put a matt<br />

over a lens that was smaller than the front element<br />

? Not small enough to vignette but large enough to<br />

obscure part of the front element from receiving<br />

any light ?<br />

Justin<br />

I've also heard that all glass has a certain amount<br />

of flare, thus reducing contrast depending on how<br />

much light hits it's surface. Using hard mattes will<br />

reduce the light hitting the front element, affecting<br />

contrast differently depending on lens / matte<br />

combo.<br />

Dave Trulli<br />

Page 554


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

In my assisting days, I spoke with several well<br />

established firsts (read: 'ol timers) who said that<br />

they never used these mattes because it would<br />

suck light away from the lens itself. I myself<br />

wouldn't use anything tighter than a 75mm matte<br />

for this reason. Was I too paranoid, maybe. But one<br />

of these guys told me he did tests that confirmed<br />

this light loss. Of course, we're talking a third of a<br />

stop at most so...<br />

Ken Glassing<br />

Artificial Diaphragm. Like Matting out the front of a<br />

200mm Nikkor, it would act as an additional Iris,<br />

and underexpose your image, also out of focus<br />

highlights would change shape to match that of the<br />

matte, at least that's what I understand to happen.<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Page 555


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Steven is correct in saying a small matt will act as a<br />

reducing diaphragm, reducing the exposure<br />

reaching the film. This is assuming that the matt<br />

"smaller than the lens diameter" is virtually against<br />

the lens' front element. If it is far enough forward<br />

to begin taking shape it is simply a small matt.<br />

Wedding photographers often have used the effect<br />

Steven mentioned, that out of focus bright objects<br />

tend to take the shape of the diaphragm. They will<br />

make a heart-shaped or cross-shaped diaphragm,<br />

place it against the front of the lens, then shoot a<br />

closeup of the couple with out of focus candles<br />

burning in the background. The candle flames will<br />

take the shape of a heart or a cross.<br />

A related curiosity occurs during an eclipse of the<br />

sun. As the sun's disk is partially obscured,<br />

becoming a crescent, foliage on the trees become<br />

diaphragms and the spots of sunlight reaching the<br />

sidewalk are crescent shaped.<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

Page 556


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Anything that reduces the front aperture reduces<br />

the stop.<br />

Focal length divided by aperture gives you F stop.<br />

Reduce aperture.....reduce F stop.<br />

Period.<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Depends on the lens of course, but if you put a<br />

hard matte in front of a fast long lens you will<br />

often cause a 'waterhouse stop' effect.<br />

I mean like an 85 or 135 hard matte in front of a<br />

200 or 300 Nikkor. You can tell this very well by 'a-<br />

b'ing it...the image is noticeably brighter without<br />

the matte. I first noticed this while doing a pickup<br />

shot for a MOW and saw that the image brightened<br />

suddenly when the AC swung the mattebox out of<br />

the way prior to checking the gate. It looked like an<br />

ND had been pulled--at least a full stop difference.<br />

Page 557


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Those big front elements are there for a reason,<br />

and they need to be exposed in order to gather in<br />

the light!<br />

I think this is not understood by many AC's, who<br />

are understandably anxious to keep out flares. In<br />

many movies with long-lens work you can see<br />

circles of confusion from distant highlights which<br />

have been turned into rectangles by the hard<br />

mattes.<br />

And the DP was probably wondering why those<br />

shots printed 6 points lower than everything else!<br />

Alan<br />

The matte will act as a Waterhouse stop, reducing<br />

the amount of light reaching the film.<br />

And on a long lens, you'll get those nasty square<br />

shaped edges to any out of focus highlights near<br />

to the edge of frame. I hate that.<br />

Page 558


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Chris Plevin<br />

There is an additional effect, and that's veiling<br />

glare (sometimes called flare). If you're using a<br />

zoom, e.g. 5:1 Cooke and you have a set with a lot<br />

of light coming in from the side and top (i.e.<br />

overall flat lighting) then masking down will<br />

dramatically reduce veiling glare, thus increasing<br />

overall contrast and reducing the stray light in the<br />

shadow areas. This can seem like reduced<br />

exposure.<br />

In isolation of course, you _want_ to reduce veiling<br />

glare, but if you're cutting together shots, then you<br />

should try to keep in constant. Of course, with<br />

video, you can adjust the black level and gamma to<br />

compensate, but we'll keep away from that<br />

particular discussion!<br />

Brian Rose<br />

Page 559


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Then what is the best procedure when setting up a<br />

mattebox with an adjustable internal bellows on a<br />

zoom?<br />

For example, if you're putting using an 8-64 only<br />

at the long end, should you set the bellows for the<br />

extreme wide end only?<br />

And then use the eyebrow and side wings to cover<br />

the tight end?<br />

And aren't your eyebrows and sidewings doing the<br />

same as a hard matte, effecting your true aperture?<br />

Don't worry about it, this problem only occurs with<br />

long fast lenses when they are being used at wide<br />

apertures.<br />

Think of it this way: a Nikkor 300mm T2, wide<br />

open, has an aperture that is 150mm in diameter,<br />

right? That's over seven inches. Obviously a hard<br />

matte for an 85 is smaller than that, therefore the<br />

hard matte becomes the iris, since it's the<br />

Page 560


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

narrowest opening the light has go through to get<br />

to the film. That's why it's like a 'Waterhouse stop,'<br />

a sheet of metal with a hole punched in it--the<br />

most primitive kind of iris.<br />

On an 8-64 at the long end, wide open, your<br />

maximum aperture is only about 27m in diameter,<br />

about an inch. So you've got lots of room to bring<br />

in your mattebox, or shade, or hard matte, or<br />

whatever.<br />

Alan<br />

Also out of focus lights(with a long lens) turn into<br />

the form of the iris.<br />

Hexagonal or circular so you probably tell what<br />

lenses were used without seeing the credits that’s<br />

if you know what your all irises look like.<br />

Brian Fass<br />

Page 561


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I couldn't keep away: of course you know that you<br />

can adjust black level and gamma in telecine, if<br />

you're going to video only (no print).<br />

Mark<br />

Page 562


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Meters<br />

I always used to wear a Belt with up to 3 meters on<br />

it, I'd spot the highlights, put a domed spectra up<br />

for fleshtones and walk around a bit with a candela<br />

to get area readings and to double check things.<br />

yes, getting thru tight spaces and shutting car<br />

doors was a problem. I felt like a grenadier.<br />

But no more. I recently bought a Minolta F spot and<br />

now I find myself using nothing else. Gone is the<br />

meter belt, and I work faster now. one potential<br />

problem is that the buttons are easily bumped and<br />

I have caught myself with shutter speeds and ISO's<br />

bumped. luckily it hasn’t cost me a shot yet,<br />

somehow you tend to notice this and pause for a<br />

sec worrying about your last shot - and if its not a<br />

fleshtone- moving on and trusting Kodak.<br />

With actors I still like to use my old spectra pro (by<br />

far my favorite meter) I don’t like to point and<br />

squeeze at peoples faces unless I have to (feels<br />

rude) and I’ve noticed that actors sorta like the old<br />

spectra, its friendly. otherwise I'll use my hand in<br />

their light (back or front depending on their tone)<br />

Page 563


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and open a stop, but generally I don’t see why to<br />

pull my incident meters out anymore. Am I missing<br />

something?<br />

I look in the frame for whatever I want my middle<br />

tone (gray zone 5) to be and then measure the<br />

brightest and darkest areas and work from there. 3<br />

quick clicks if pressed. personally I’ve been<br />

exposing down (under exposing) to increase the<br />

black levels and amplify the effect of edge and rim<br />

lighting. I don’t get to see my work much these<br />

days so I’m dealing in theory- but the directors<br />

have been calling me back for more abuse.<br />

I didn’t buy the 508 because it was unavailable, but<br />

there was also the prob of grabbing the meter out<br />

of the holster all day. those dainty little domes on<br />

many digital meters bother me cause I wonder if<br />

they'll hold up to being grabbed 200 times a day-<br />

and they sit in the pouch such that the dome gets<br />

grabbed- and I'm amazed at how thin (and sorry,<br />

cheaply) many housings are manufactured- even in<br />

the "expensive" meters. (no names) That’s why I<br />

like my old spectra’s- its solid. (altho the inner<br />

mechanism seems made of gossamer and cobweb)<br />

Page 564


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

So, I just am curious about the metering habits of<br />

this esteemed group. have I got lazy? and by the<br />

way- I really hate the 'pleather' genuine artificial<br />

cases that new meters come with. I'm a case freak,<br />

leather lover (pure vanity) - I once saw an ad for<br />

what looked like nice handmade leather meter<br />

cases - anyone have a line on such creature<br />

comforts?<br />

Caleb "measure once, cut twice" Crosby<br />

I too love the Minolta Spot F. I cemented a little<br />

guard over the buttons that always get bumped to<br />

keep that from happening.<br />

One of my favorite features is one I "stumbled"<br />

into: Take a spot reading of whatever it is in your<br />

scene that you want to be a mid-tone (where you<br />

are going to set the lens stop) then push the "A"<br />

button in the middle of the top row. Then every<br />

reading you take after that is in number of stops<br />

and tenths over or under (negative indication)<br />

relative to your "base" or mid tone stop. This is<br />

*extremely* useful. It is much faster than actually<br />

Page 565


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

reading stops and then adding and subtracting in<br />

your head, something I have trouble doing,<br />

especially if I am at an in-between stop for the<br />

"base" stop.<br />

This information of how many stops and tenths<br />

over or under "base" is what I really want to know<br />

anyway.<br />

To get out of that mode, press "clear" and the<br />

meter reverts back to normal. Happy metering.<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

I found it interesting to read your email about<br />

lightmeters. I myself only use a Minolta M<br />

spotmeter (the same as the F, but without the flash<br />

option and it uses a different harder to find<br />

battery). I have often been bugged by others about<br />

the fact that I only use a spotmeter but to me it<br />

makes perfect sense, I can really get specific about<br />

what I want to measure, what I want to blow out,<br />

what I want black.<br />

Page 566


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

on one shoot I had a very obnoxious crane<br />

operator (part time DP) questioning my<br />

competency because I only used a spotmeter and I<br />

was really annoyed. I felt he had no right to try to<br />

put me down in the middle of a shoot in front of<br />

other crew members just so he could show off his<br />

knowledge (film school learned rules) of<br />

cinematography. I was hired on my reel, not on the<br />

light meters I choose to use. once you're<br />

competent and secure in you ability with a<br />

spotmeter I hardly ever see any reason to use<br />

anything else. I do always carry an incident light<br />

meter in my kit though, mainly as a backup in case<br />

my spotmeter conks out but also just to have<br />

handy for anyone with any challenges to my light<br />

reading ability. as for pointing the meter at actor's<br />

and performer's faces, I find that they very quickly<br />

they learn to like it, sometimes even act offended<br />

when you read the people around them and not<br />

them. no offence to "the talent" but often it seems<br />

they love to have anything with a lens pointed at<br />

them as it validates their "specialness" on the set.<br />

o. fenech<br />

Page 567


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I would have pulled him to the side, quietly so no<br />

other crew members heard, and asked him if he<br />

wanted to leave!<br />

You are the DP, you have the right to do as you<br />

will on the set [as long as it is your job and not<br />

chasing the script girl...]. If this fellow could not<br />

understand his one and only warning...then fire<br />

him on the spot [but first mention your intentions<br />

to the UPM so a few phone calls could me made<br />

first!]. A good crane op is wonderful, a loud<br />

mouthed crew member is not. It sounds like this<br />

guy is sore because you got the gig and all he got<br />

was an opportunity to push you through the<br />

air....well that's reality! I would not trust the fellow<br />

to hit his marks correctly after his outburst, and<br />

that makes you look really bad to everyone [if you<br />

were also the camera op].<br />

You, as the DP, have every right to use whatever<br />

tools you see fit to calculate the correct exposure,<br />

if that means you wish to stand on your head and<br />

Page 568


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

gargle a mouth full of water as you read your<br />

meter, then so be it!!!<br />

Cross that fellows name off your list [and secretly<br />

e-mail it to me so I never run across this jerk too!].<br />

Good luck,<br />

Jeff Barklage<br />

Caleb,<br />

You are not lazy. I haven't used an incident meter<br />

in over ten years (Wait a moment, maybe I'm lazy<br />

too. You raise an ugly point). I have an incident<br />

meter in my case. But I've never found a reason to<br />

bring it out. Bill's trick is really useful. I not only<br />

use that but I have to admit that I sometimes take<br />

a Highlight reading and memorize it. Then take a<br />

Shadow reading and memorize that. Then I press<br />

the "A" button. I check that against a Grey Card<br />

and find that "A" always gives me a value within a<br />

tenth or two of my own calculations. Uncanny...<br />

And speaking of Grey Cards...<br />

Page 569


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

There is a great little tool that I use. It is called<br />

"The Last Grey Card" and it comes in 4x5 and<br />

8x10 (inches). The 4x5 fits perfectly into a Tiffen<br />

Panavision size filter pouch. It sits in my back<br />

pocket ready to use. And it is washable. They are<br />

grey on one side and white on the other. I buy<br />

them by the dozen because I end up giving them<br />

away. They are a product for the still market made<br />

by Unicolor.<br />

You can call them at 800-521-4042 ext. 322 and<br />

ask for Susan. Or you can write to:<br />

7200 Huron River Drive,<br />

Dexter, Michigan 48130-1099<br />

USA<br />

Or ask your local photo supply house to stock<br />

them. It's the best $5 you'll spend in a while.<br />

Steven Poster ASC<br />

Page 570


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I still rely on my Minolta Spotmeter F - it came with<br />

a little plastic piece to glue next to those pesky,<br />

easily pushed buttons. I used to use the old<br />

Spectra Pro, but have damaged enough movements<br />

in my career that I finally switched to the new<br />

Spectra, which is great. I was sceptical of the new<br />

Sekonic (is the 508 the one I'm about to<br />

describe....) until I actually saw one on a set. It can<br />

memorize two ISO settings (great for Polaroid’s), a<br />

zoom spot meter, the collecting dome can adjust<br />

from flat disk level to sphere by turning a little<br />

bezel around the edge of it and it uses a<br />

thumbwheel to adjust the film/shutter speed from<br />

300fps down to 3 or so. I've owned a Sekonic<br />

before just for the flash meter capability, and<br />

disliked it's collecting dome, but this meter really<br />

impressed me. Usually, the all purpose tool does<br />

nothing well, but I think I could make an exception<br />

here.<br />

As far as metering habits, I know of many who use<br />

the spot meter exclusively. Me, I use my incident<br />

meter usually at the beginning of a setup to make<br />

sure that I'm in the ballpark of where I want my key<br />

light to be - and then light by eye, and check with<br />

the spot as we get close to being "there". Perhaps a<br />

Page 571


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

final check with the incident meter, and we're<br />

rolling......(oh, is the stop on?)<br />

Ted Hayash<br />

:::blink, blink, blink:::<br />

I'm going to try to be somewhat moderate in my<br />

response, though my first instinct would have<br />

been to fire off a colorful, "Bronx Style" string of<br />

expletives at this crane operator that involved<br />

fornication and rolling doughnuts...<br />

More likely I would have responded with<br />

something along the lines of: "Really? You should<br />

spend more time working with one of these<br />

meters, they are really slick. They are much<br />

handier and more accurate than anything you<br />

learned in school, but only for those have the<br />

patience to learn how to make proper use of one.<br />

Many people screw up exposure by assuming they<br />

know how these things work."<br />

Page 572


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

As most all here know, I'm am advertising still<br />

photographer but it strikes me that there are<br />

similarities in the talents called upon in my work<br />

and a DP's. As such, I don't think it is a stretch to<br />

assume that we all have a moderate amount of<br />

anxiety when it comes to choosing an exposure<br />

that never leaves us, no matter how experienced<br />

we become. On the other hand, each of us has<br />

come up with their own methods of calculating<br />

exposure that reduces this anxiety to a minimum.<br />

I can't imagine questioning anyone else’s<br />

"correctness" in meter ing methodology any more<br />

than anyone questioning mine. Your post is not<br />

about meters but about a crane op who's etiquette<br />

is in dire need of a "tune-up" (firing).<br />

Years ago I used to trade out assisting services<br />

with other beginning photographers I knew<br />

helping each other working on photographs for<br />

our portfolios. We had a very clear understanding<br />

that whatever the other wanted do, got done. To<br />

this day I'm sure in my heart that one of these<br />

photographers I traded services with must be at<br />

least partially blind, what he wanted to accomplish<br />

on the shots I helped him with were truly terrible.<br />

Even then, though my instincts were screaming<br />

Page 573


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

inside me to "fix" things, that's where they stayed,<br />

inside.<br />

Before this gets to become a rambling, let me<br />

finish this quick by stating the obvious...<br />

It's the film that counts, not the genus and species<br />

of cat who's eyes you use for a meter. ;-)<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

I think that spot metering is the opposite of lazy.<br />

It requires slightly more work to find your own<br />

average by "zoning" highlights and shadow areas<br />

to get a more accurate exposure. I also think that<br />

the the use of incident meters for fleshtones is<br />

overrated, since all the dome does is average all of<br />

the light. Doesn't help you much if you're shooting<br />

dark-skinned talent or lighting someone by using<br />

their natural sheen, or certain high-key situations.<br />

I swear I've photographed some actors with 55%<br />

reflectancy !<br />

Page 574


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I'm also a leather freak, but I like it because it lasts<br />

forever (OK, they also look better). And yet my<br />

meters are still in nylon padded cases (it's the only<br />

thing I've found to put my Spectra Pro-4 in the<br />

"lumishpere down" position since I don't want to<br />

yank it out by the dome. Also have<br />

developed a cool flip-draw-out-of-the-holster<br />

technique that impresses clients. :-)<br />

I've always zoned the frame with my spot meter,<br />

but I still find my incident meter handy in "lighting<br />

air" sometimes...I don't always have stand-ins<br />

there, so it's a good way to paint some broad<br />

strokes. I also find it useful when I'm really rushed<br />

on a shot that I'm grabbing "docu-style". Perhaps<br />

I'm slower at spotting and zoning my frame, or too<br />

thorough, but it's faster for me to get an incident<br />

reading to key or camera than to miss a shot.<br />

I also check it against my own spot calculations.<br />

Always loved the photograph of Maysle with the<br />

incident meter attached to the mattebox.<br />

I'm still looking into that Sekonic monster spot<br />

meter (not the 508 combo). But it's listing at $750-<br />

$800 ! And it's been difficult to get feedback on<br />

this meter's accuracy & reliability.<br />

Page 575


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mark Doering-Powell<br />

I am reminded of an article in American<br />

Cinematographer where Doug Slocombe (who shot<br />

several, if not all, of the Indiana Jones films)<br />

described how he came to use no meter at all. He<br />

said that he used to light by eye, and then use the<br />

meter to check after the setup. He finally realized<br />

that he didn't need the meter at all after finding<br />

himself turning and/or covering the meter to<br />

adjust it to the stop that he wanted it to read, not<br />

simply reading and accepting the meters findings.<br />

Ted Hayash<br />

If the monster Sekonic that Mark is referring to is<br />

the L778, and I don't know of a bigger meter :-),<br />

then it's the one I use as my main meter. I love it,<br />

the ease of adjusting Highlight & Shadow limits,<br />

Page 576


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the 5 exposure reading memory and display, the<br />

way that it forces up the value of my Everex &<br />

Duracell shares......<br />

The only limitation that I've found with it is<br />

measuring blue screen and TV screens, but then<br />

only my Pentax spot seems to manage those. I<br />

carry a couple of Minolta Incidents, a Spectra<br />

Candela, a Minolta CT meter and a B&S frequency<br />

meter, I used to carry a Minolta spot as well but I<br />

gave that to my operator.<br />

Try the big Sekonic, if you like spot meters then it's<br />

for you.<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff<br />

If I can be suffered the bandwidth for a little<br />

tutorial, maybe someone out there can benefit:<br />

I believe we are beneficiaries of the marvellous<br />

exposure range of negative stocks. Even though<br />

Page 577


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

we may erroneously select a midtone that isn't<br />

really as close to 18% as it should be, the neg. bails<br />

us out with its range.<br />

Perhaps Cliff, as a commercial still photog., will<br />

agree that shooting for reproduction on color<br />

reversal film presents stiffer requirements than<br />

shooting neg. The necessity for really precise<br />

exposure and careful control of lighting ratio is<br />

considerably greater and the incident meter, used<br />

properly, of course, makes it relatively easy.<br />

With reversal (for those who may not have<br />

experience with it) the danger is overexposure. If<br />

the highlights are washed out there is no<br />

redemption. When your most important area is a<br />

light tone, say a pale Caucasian face or a product<br />

that is a pale pastel, +1/2 stop will probably be<br />

disaster. On the other hand, underexposure must<br />

be used judiciously, since there isn't a lot of range<br />

that direction either. Keeping the scene within the<br />

narrower limits of the film by spot reading the<br />

highlights and shadows will not necessarily zone<br />

that important flesh tone where it ought to be.<br />

Everything has to be carefully read.<br />

While a spot meter can be used with great success<br />

on reversal, I don't think you can be quite so quick<br />

Page 578


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and casual about it as you can with neg. On the<br />

other hand, when shooting darker flesh subjects<br />

the incident meter won't provide the comfort level<br />

it does on light flesh! Someone criticized the<br />

incident meter because the dome just averages all<br />

the light it receives. I've noticed that a lot of<br />

photographers seem not to be aware of the reason<br />

for, and proper handling of, the domed meter (and<br />

it is very irritating to see them produce excellent<br />

results despite their ignorance! OTOH, I haven't<br />

seen many do well with reversal film if they don't<br />

really know how to handle it.)<br />

A true incident meter has a flat receptor, because<br />

"incident" light, technically speaking, is light that<br />

is incident to a flat surface. The flat receptor<br />

causes the meter to read illumination that mirrors<br />

the cosine effect of light falling on a flat surface<br />

from angles other than normal. But most of our<br />

subjects are 3- dimensional and there are often<br />

multiple sources of illumination. The purpose of<br />

the 3-dimensional receptor, or dome, is to make it<br />

possible with one reading to achieve the best<br />

exposure on reversal of 3-dimensional subjects<br />

lighted with multiple sources. The meter is held at<br />

the subject and pointed toward the lens and the<br />

Page 579


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

dome averages the sources to split the difference.<br />

But this is for uncontrolled lighting, where you<br />

have to make the best of what is there. The secret<br />

to its correct use is to realize that if you are<br />

controlling the lighting you need to defeat or<br />

change out the dome. If you are controlling the<br />

lighting ratio you don't want the meter to<br />

compromise what you've done.<br />

So cup your hand around the dome and point the<br />

dome at the source to read the key, then the fill,<br />

etc., to determine ratios. You can look at the<br />

dome to see what sources are actually reaching it<br />

by looking for their spectral reflections on the<br />

dome surface. Or you can use the flat receptor in<br />

place of the dome. To determine exposure, shield<br />

any backlight off the dome and point the dome<br />

between the key and fill to achieve the maximum<br />

reading.<br />

And as has been mentioned, the incident meter is<br />

the quickest way to "light air!"<br />

All of this is critical for reversal. For negative, not<br />

nearly so much precision is needed. Crack the<br />

aperture open a bit for safety! But if you follow<br />

Page 580


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the above procedure for negative as well, you'll<br />

achieve great consistency.<br />

Thanks for reading!<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

A word of warning: Perhaps because do few people<br />

use their flat photoreceptor disc, many<br />

manufacturers calibrate the meters with the<br />

photosphere and the flat disc may not match. In<br />

the case of my Spectra Pro IV, we ended up adding<br />

a very slight ND behind the flat disc so it would<br />

match the dome...with one of my Sekonics a dab of<br />

dirt effected the same change. Granted, a 2/10<br />

discrepancy is virtually meaningless in the world of<br />

neg., but I shoot a lot of slides (for therapy) and<br />

more importantly, I would rather correct the<br />

discrepancy than try to remember which way it<br />

goes each time. As a gaffer, I think meter<br />

calibration was more of an issue for me than for<br />

my DP clients...it was attendant on me to match<br />

their meters, and in some cases I would have to<br />

Page 581


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

change my ASA by a third of a stop so that I would<br />

call out numbers that would agree with their<br />

meters.<br />

When you are the DP, other people have to conform<br />

to YOU :-)<br />

Mark H. Weingartner<br />

That is very curious! I have used--and still do-dozens<br />

of Sekonic Studio meters, from the days<br />

when it was the original Norwood Director through<br />

all models to the current L-398M; Spectra<br />

Professional and Professional II; and Spectra<br />

Combi 500 and Combi II. In every single case, the<br />

flat disc receptor reads LOWER than the dome, by<br />

about 1/3 stop. Putting ND behind it would make<br />

it read even lower. And this is when reading a<br />

source perpendicular to the disc surface, so cosine<br />

effect isn't involved. (Although we have several<br />

Minolta and Sekonic digital meters, we don't have<br />

flat receptors for them, so I haven't tried them.)<br />

Page 582


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've always attributed this to the greater surface<br />

area of the dome collecting a bit more light, even<br />

though the source is perpendicular to the meter<br />

front.<br />

Back in the days of shooting titles on B&W reversal,<br />

i.e., Plus-X Reversal, the lack of the excellent<br />

Rem-Jet anti-halo backing on B&W made the use<br />

of the disc a disadvantage, although theoretically,<br />

it should be used. But the best results were by<br />

using the dome and then stopping down one stop,<br />

to reduce flare from the whites. –<br />

Wade Ramsey<br />

I remember reading those stories about Slocombe.<br />

Later I realized that he must tell his gaffer to light<br />

a scene to given number of footcandles (let's say,<br />

150) especially being the old-time DP that he is -<br />

and his gaffer must have had a meter on him so<br />

Page 583


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

that he knew when he was at the correct footcandle<br />

level.<br />

So in a sense, SOMEONE on the set is metering the<br />

light - it's just not Slocombe...<br />

David Mullen<br />

I've got a Minolta Auto III - had it for -- Six years?<br />

That sounds about right... Just now running into<br />

dome problems -- and that's more because I<br />

switch from dome to flat disc to reflected disc<br />

quite often.<br />

I carry the meter in a soft nylon case -- and it's<br />

held up great. I don't own a spot meter -- but I've<br />

used them on many different occasions. I like the<br />

F very much (my favorite function is the average<br />

setting. I take a reading at "key" (iris setting) and<br />

switch into average. Then hold down the button<br />

and quickly sweep through the shot -- instantly<br />

knowing my stops over and under... Very great for<br />

precise control...).<br />

Page 584


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

However, I'm very much a to-the-source incident<br />

guy (which is why the flat disc comes out so often)<br />

I find that it gives me a greater deal of control over<br />

where I want to put the whole scene's ratio on the<br />

film. I absolutely HATE metering to camera with a<br />

dome as it feels very much like the lowest common<br />

dominator setting...<br />

Jay Holben<br />

Wonder what this guy would say working with<br />

someone like Doug Slocombe who is reputed to<br />

use no meter whatsoever... Now! How<br />

incompetent is that?<br />

I only wish I could be so incompetent with three<br />

Oscar nominations...<br />

:)<br />

Jay Holben<br />

Page 585


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Works fine for me. I did most of my own feature<br />

(on 'no latitude' Tri X) using it, extensive night ints<br />

and night exts with lots of pyrotechnics etc -<br />

justified its cost I'd say. I have not done green or<br />

bluescreen work with it, however.<br />

(re Geoff's comments).<br />

But I did do a project with large areas of red &<br />

red/orange walls - a major element of the scenes.<br />

Densities were what I expected. Then again, I think<br />

the camera film is the final 'light meter' !<br />

-Sam Wells<br />

Addicted to spot meters, but it has problems with<br />

blue screen and TV screens ? What good is it ? :-)<br />

But seriously, could you elaborate ? Are the<br />

bluescreen readings off by a constant value, or<br />

erratically different ? And it cannot meter TV<br />

screens either ? Sounds like a blue sensitivity<br />

Page 586


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

problem. Were you getting overexposures of blue<br />

layer on tungsten film with the Sekonic Spot ?<br />

Thanks for the feedback on the monster.<br />

--------------<br />

On occasion, I will do the same to my incident<br />

meter when shooting 2 nd unit...depending upon the<br />

DP. Some feel more comfortable like that, other's<br />

don't care how you arrive at an image as long as it<br />

matches.<br />

Great thing about meters is, they always read what<br />

you want them to read !<br />

:-)<br />

-----------------<br />

Wade Ramsey wrote:<br />

>The purpose of the 3-dimensional receptor, or<br />

dome, is to make it<br />

> possible with one reading to achieve the best<br />

exposure on reversal of<br />

> 3-dimensional subjects lighted with multiple<br />

sources. The meter is held<br />

> at the subject and pointed toward the lens and<br />

the dome averages the<br />

> sources to split the difference...[snip]<br />

><br />

Page 587


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

>So cup your hand around the dome and point the<br />

dome at the<br />

> source to read the key, then the fill, etc., to<br />

determine ratios. You can<br />

> look at the dome to see what sources are<br />

actually reaching it by looking<br />

> for their spectral reflections on the dome<br />

surface...[snip]<br />

><br />

>And as has been mentioned, the incident meter is<br />

the quickest way to<br />

> "light air!"<br />

><br />

If only I could have read this back in the early 80's<br />

when I was still figuring out how to use an incident<br />

meter accurately ! :-)<br />

While it is true that a domed incident meter is<br />

meant to average or split the key/fill lights to give<br />

you a fairly accurate reading for normal lighting<br />

situations, I think that almost nobody lights this<br />

way anymore (or rarely does so). Sometimes I'm<br />

shooting a 3/4 XCU of an actor and the keylight is<br />

a 3/4 soft backlight barely wrapping to the closest<br />

eye. And there's little fill. Point the dome to the<br />

camera and take a reading to get a really<br />

overexposed negative !<br />

Page 588


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Normally, I would shield the dome and aim at key,<br />

fill, key+fill, that sort of thing. The final lens stop<br />

then is still our own interpretation. But I have<br />

gotten into the habit of metering some of my<br />

Day/Ext's with my incident meter to lens...as a final<br />

check. Again, this is usually when I'm rushed, and<br />

haven't taken some spot readings. Sometimes I've<br />

taken a reading to a side fill from a 12x12 griff,<br />

and put that 2 stops down, and then the sunlight I<br />

let go hotter if it's a backlight perhaps. But once I<br />

thought I was all set, and I took a final average to<br />

lens as I walked back to the camera. Youza, my<br />

meter was almost at "E"! ASA & fps ok...so what<br />

gives ? Ah, yes, behind the camera was a grove of<br />

60 ft. spruces chewing up all of the sky fill. That's<br />

what I get for lighting air !<br />

Of course, if you just stand by the cam era, and eye<br />

the scene, take a couple of spot readings if you<br />

have stand-ins, or off of the setting, then you can<br />

arrive at the same good f-stop.<br />

Mark "am I the only one who lights & spots their<br />

fist ?" Doering-Powell<br />

Page 589


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I worked with a premier Hollywood DP that prided<br />

himself in setting the stop without a meter,<br />

stopping down until the density on the ground<br />

glass looked right.<br />

The editor on a movie we were doing told me that<br />

she had never seen dailies so all over the place<br />

exposure-wise. : - )<br />

Mako Koiwai<br />

>Mark "am I the only one who lights & spots their<br />

fist ?" Doering-Powell<br />

No, you're not alone. Being Indian the back of my<br />

hand is almost 18% reflectance too so that's like<br />

carrying a grey card without having to pay as Steve<br />

does - the downside is you can't pass it around! I<br />

suppose the next best thing is to live in LA and<br />

pick up a nice suntan! :-)<br />

Page 590


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I frequently spot the back of my hand. I take my<br />

hat off to anyone who can light with just a spot<br />

meter, though. I find the innumerable readings<br />

confusing. I use the incident (shielding as needed)<br />

and then use my Pentax spot to read the dodgy<br />

areas for reassurance.<br />

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting<br />

Cameraman<br />

The blue readings are inconsistent in the same way<br />

that Minolta spot readings are. The only meter I've<br />

found that's consistent with these is the Pentax.<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff<br />

Having been a gaffer in the US for years on both<br />

coasts and in all types of shoots (doc, IMAX,<br />

feature, commercial, TV, corporate industrial, etc) I<br />

Page 591


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

had always been expected to carry and use incident<br />

and reflected light meters. I was a bit surprised on<br />

crossing the pond for a UK based, UK crewed film<br />

to discover that gaffes do not carry meters on set.<br />

The miniatures unit that we set up was gaffed by<br />

Ron Shane, and Dave Stewart, our DP, openly and<br />

aggressively encouraged Ron to take readings and<br />

make lighting decisions. Ron did quite well in this<br />

respect.<br />

A few months after the miniature unit started up I<br />

was charged with heading up miniature Pyro and<br />

misc. elements unit for the same show. Ron asked<br />

his father, Laurie Shane, if he would be willing to<br />

come and gaff for me for a few weeks.<br />

For those of you who do not know of Laurie, his<br />

credits as gaffer span 30 years and include The<br />

Empire Strikes Back, Reds, Mission Impossible,<br />

Under Milkwood etc etc etc. Even though we were<br />

just blowing up spaceships and such on green<br />

screen, Laurie agreed to come and work with us<br />

which was an absolute pleasure for me. He owns<br />

and uses meters, but even he was very conscious<br />

of the political difference between his carrying<br />

meters on an American set and on a Continental<br />

Page 592


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

one. He echoed Ron's statement that it would be<br />

considered inappropriate for him to be metering a<br />

set unless he were pre-lighting or there were other<br />

extenuating cir cumstances preventing the DoP<br />

from getting his own readings.<br />

I have to report that though our few weeks of<br />

greenscreen work was nothing compared to the<br />

sort of work Laurie normally does, he and his crew<br />

attacked the job with outright enthusiasm and took<br />

wonderful care of me.<br />

By the way, when lighting the air around a 15' long<br />

exploding spaceship in front of an 80x25 green<br />

with a 40x25 return you really end up using an<br />

incident meter a lot ☺<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

Geoff Boyle wrote:<br />

> The blue readings are inconsistent in the same<br />

way that Minolta spot<br />

> readings are.<br />

Page 593


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

><br />

Point of clarification: Do you find the blue<br />

readings to be inconsistent with each other or<br />

inconsistent with respect to white light readings on<br />

the same set? I have found most meters, spot and<br />

incident, to be inaccurate in the monochromatic<br />

blue world (where they were never meant to be) but<br />

consistent once the "exposure offset" has been<br />

determined. I've been using a Minolta Spotmeter M<br />

for blue, green, and red screens for years with no<br />

problems...once I knew what those offsets were for<br />

my meter.<br />

The offsets are relatively easy to determine, so if<br />

that is the only reason not to use the Sekonic Super<br />

Meter, I could provide instructions for determining<br />

that offset. If, on the other hand, the readings at<br />

the blue end of the spectrum are inconsistent<br />

because of large sensitivity differences over small<br />

wavelength shifts , the meter would not be a good<br />

candidate for anyone who shoots blue screens.<br />

mark Weingartner<br />

Page 594


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

David Mullen wrote:<br />

>I remember reading those stories about<br />

Slocombe. Later I realized that<br />

>he must tell his gaffer to light a scene to given<br />

number of footcandles<br />

>(let'ssay, 150<br />

David,<br />

I've worked a number of times and I don't recall<br />

seeing a meter anywhere. He just looked at the<br />

back of his hand in the set. Mind you, it was almost<br />

always 5.6!<br />

Martin Shepherd<br />

There seems no question that Slocombe is good at<br />

it. But has anyone ever read his neg. densities?<br />

The eye is a fabulous comparator but auto adjusts<br />

too much to be a good objective gauge of quantity<br />

(we see normal exposure under any illumination<br />

from about 7 fc up to bright sunlight.) But we can<br />

learn to make good judgements of exposure from<br />

Page 595


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

our memory of what worked in previous settings<br />

with similar lighting fixture setups, etc.<br />

I wonder what would happen if someone lighted a<br />

set in such a way that when he was brought in<br />

(blindfolded) and allowed to look at the lighting<br />

without any reference to the fixtures and working<br />

distances, whether he would be able to make a very<br />

accurate objective estimate, especially if it were<br />

lighted a stop or so hotter than he normally does.<br />

Don't suppose we'll ever have a chance to test that!<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

I work often on Commercials from and in South<br />

Korea. I still have problems working in that<br />

system.<br />

The Gaffer doesn't use a meter, the DP doesn't use<br />

a meter. The first a/c meters the scene, sets the<br />

stop then tells the DP what he will be shooting at.<br />

When doing exteriors, I often caught the ac<br />

Page 596


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

grabbing an incident from arms length from the<br />

lens.... after that I instructed the griptricians that<br />

there would be no courtesy flags set up next to<br />

camera....<br />

I made the mistake of trying to reconfigure job<br />

responsibilities to a more familiar one for me. It<br />

caused a half day work stoppage, as everyone was<br />

training on "new" positions.<br />

As the only Korean speaking, American DP<br />

registered with the Korean Film Commission, I have<br />

had to learn to adjust to this different working<br />

environment. This includes taking each "new" 1st<br />

ac I work with aside and explaining to them that<br />

my use of a light meter, in no way shows that I<br />

don't trust him, but is a "cultural" thing. I also<br />

spend the first day showing them where I want<br />

them to meter from (always at the action, not at<br />

the end of the lens). After awhile, I mention to<br />

them how busy they are, and ask if they would<br />

mind me taking the meter readings while they are<br />

changing the lens. Pretty soon I have the ac<br />

trained not to worry about those pesky f-stops.<br />

On one show I even got the ac to borrow his meter<br />

to the gaffer so he could "take care of it for him".<br />

Page 597


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I was called to shoot a Korean pilot, but a friend<br />

warned me away from it, because "They do things<br />

really different for TV". Call me a glutton for<br />

punishment, I'm interviewing for it next week.<br />

Clark "but I'm huge in Korea" Jackson<br />

I was just making a GUESS - if everyone in the UK<br />

says that no one takes a meter reading on a<br />

Slocombe set, I believe them - really! Thanks to<br />

everyone for the correction.<br />

I guess when you shoot enough films - especially<br />

in the days when Kodak had only one color<br />

negative stock - you pretty much know what a 5K<br />

at 15 feet is going to give you...<br />

I didn't intend to slight Douglas Slocombe, whose<br />

work I have admired for a long time. In the UK,<br />

does the DP (lighting cameraman) call out all the<br />

units to be used (as in "10K goes over there, 2K<br />

Page 598


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

here, arm a Tweenie over the top, etc.)? My gaffers<br />

complain when I do that, so I was wondering.<br />

David Mullen<br />

Clark Jackson wrote :-<br />

>The first a/c meters the scene, sets the stop then<br />

>tells the DP what he will be shooting at.<br />

I would like to public notice that I would be happy<br />

to perform this small service for any DP. A small<br />

charge is levied, approximately half his or her fee :)<br />

Justin Pentecost<br />

The Korean system can be baffling. I once shot<br />

some 2nd Unit / Car Chase & crashes for a Korean<br />

film called "Mix" (don't know whatever happened to<br />

it). The crew was almost entirely Korean, complete<br />

with 3 translators and the largest camera<br />

Page 599


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

department I have ever seen. The DP had no<br />

interest in lining-up any action shots. He did<br />

operate "B-Camera" on some of them. A very<br />

reserved, quiet man.<br />

The AC did most of the metering. That was all fine<br />

and good, but they were probably wondering what<br />

the hell I was doing out there metering for my<br />

camera. AC's kept drilling me about what I<br />

thought of their MovieCam Compact (it was a<br />

prized possession), and they could not understand<br />

that my camera (which they had ordered from<br />

Clairmont) was centered for Academy, and not<br />

Super -35. Oh well, I tried to explain it ad<br />

nauseum, but they did not seem to mind !<br />

Also: the AC did not reload/thread the camera, nor<br />

move it. 2-3 other fellows did that. 1st AC simply<br />

metered and pulled focus (all eyefocus) and turned<br />

the camera on/off.<br />

One curious thing did occur apropos metering: at<br />

sunrise I was operating B-Camera for one of their<br />

normal scenes. I occasionally took a surreptitious<br />

spot meter reading to make certain that a language<br />

barrier would not give me the wrong stop. Well, on<br />

Page 600


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

that one shot we were about 5 stops different in<br />

opinion. I kindly asked the AC if he had calculated<br />

for the ND's and Pola's. He just kept saying:<br />

"eight" and then using his hands to hold up 8<br />

fingers. OK, no problem...didn't even attempt to<br />

compare ASA on our meters. DP just stood by,<br />

quiet and reserved as ever.<br />

My American AC and I could barely see through our<br />

filter pack.<br />

I think that shot would have been black, or close to<br />

it. :-(<br />

PS- At lunch, the entire Korean contingent<br />

disappeared. Gone. The few local Americans were<br />

left with a few boxes of MickyD's or some other<br />

type of fast food. Minutes later I found them all,<br />

crouched behind a series of parked vans eating<br />

Chinese food ! Kept thinking how they must've<br />

thought we liked the the slop they provided us. I<br />

would've much rather had their meal !<br />

Mark Doering-Powell<br />

Page 601


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The problem that I have with the Sekonic, and the<br />

Minolta for that matter, with blue screens is that<br />

although I know I can work out an offset for that<br />

meter I'm not confident that that offset will be<br />

consistent from shoot to shoot.<br />

Sometimes I light a Blue Screen with white light,<br />

sometimes I light it with Rosco Moonlight Blue gel,<br />

sometimes I use super blue tubes. Sometimes it's a<br />

cloth backing, sometimes paint etc etc. I just don't<br />

trust either the Sekonic or the Minolta in those<br />

circumstances.<br />

As an example:-<br />

Vision 200<br />

Shot No. Minolta FG Pentax FG Minolta BG Pentax<br />

BG Colour<br />

1 4.3 9 1.4 8*<br />

Kino Blue<br />

2 4.3 9 1.02<br />

7** Nd3<br />

Page 602


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

3 4.3 9<br />

6** Nd6<br />

Vision 200<br />

Shot No. Minolta FG Pentax FG Minolta BG Pentax<br />

BG Colour<br />

15 4.3 9 4 8*<br />

Kino Grn<br />

16 4.3 9 2.8 7*<br />

Nd3<br />

17 4.3 9 2 6*<br />

Nd6<br />

Part of the series of tests that I shot recently.<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff<br />

The big important grossly obvious missing point in<br />

all this is that measuring by itself doesn't make the<br />

lighting look any better. It's the changes you make<br />

Page 603


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

based on your measurements that take time and<br />

make you worth your salary.<br />

If we were to do a Gantt chart on a typical day's<br />

shoot, I doubt there'd be much time spent<br />

measuring light on the critical path.<br />

Whether you use the broad brush of the incident<br />

meter or the narrow brush of the spot meter, it's<br />

still where you put the paint that counts. ;-)<br />

John Sprung<br />

I have no intention of taking away anything from<br />

those great Cinematographers who did indeed<br />

have the ability to judge relative exposure without<br />

the use of any instrumentation. In fact there was a<br />

great shooter at Wilding studios in Chicago who's<br />

eye's were going toward the end of his career. He<br />

had the ability to stick out his hand in front of a<br />

light and tell what the exposure was from the heat<br />

he felt from the lamp. His name was Jake LaFloure<br />

Page 604


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I believe. Jeff Kreines might be able to verify this. I<br />

was always amazed at this talent.<br />

But there is one thing to consider in today's<br />

modern world. When working at 200 Foot Candles<br />

it takes 100FC difference to be one stop<br />

underexposed and 200 FC to be one stop over<br />

exposed. When working at 10 FC it takes 5 FC to<br />

be one stop underexposed and 10FC difference to<br />

be one stop over exposed. These differences are<br />

much more subtle with today's lenses and<br />

emulsions. Can anybody guess a 2 or 3 FC<br />

difference by eye? Of course we can. Because your<br />

eye adjusts to relative levels. But can we call<br />

exposure on those 2 or 3 FC? I doubt it.<br />

Today, meters are important and accurate meters<br />

are incredibly important.<br />

Steven Poster ASC<br />

Steven raises an interesting point: Does a stop up<br />

or down around 10 FC seem to human perception<br />

Page 605


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

subjectively as big as a stop up or down around<br />

200 FC? The human visual system isn't quite<br />

exactly logarithm ic, but it's much closer to log than<br />

linear. (If it were linear, the distance from 195 FC<br />

to 210 FC would look as big to us as the difference<br />

from 5 FC to 20 FC).<br />

If you have some time on your hands, and your<br />

hands on some lights, you might try a Just<br />

Noticeable Difference (JND) experiment. Set a pair<br />

of 5k's side by side aimed straight at the same<br />

wall. Flag them out of each other's areas.<br />

Adjust one to exactly 200 FC. Adjust the other<br />

until you can just barely see that it's brighter.<br />

Measure and record what that level is. Then adjust<br />

it to be just barely dimmer. Then try for an exact<br />

match. Swap the 5k's for inkies, and do it all again<br />

around 10 FC. You'll find it also matters a lot how<br />

big the dark band between the areas is.<br />

A much easier thing to try is simply guessing what<br />

your meter's going to say just before you read it.<br />

Get good at that, and it may save you some grief if<br />

your meter ever gets seriously out of whack. You'll<br />

know to check against another meter.<br />

Page 606


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Down in the 5-10 FC range, you also get into some<br />

other issues, as our color sensitivity drops out<br />

around there.<br />

For more of the science of this stuff, check Charles<br />

Poynton's web site:<br />

www.inforamp.net/~poynton/pdfs/<br />

John Sprung<br />

It's pretty logarithmic over the middle range. The<br />

commonly accepted wisdom is that humans can<br />

just perceive a 1 per cent difference in brightness<br />

when using a comparator (i.e. a surface emitting<br />

202FC would appear just different to one emitting<br />

200FC, but at 20FC we could detect a change to<br />

20.2FC. It's also commonly accepted that the<br />

human eye is a more sensitive comparator than<br />

almost any machine yet built.<br />

Page 607


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

At low levels (my references refuse to give numbers<br />

I can make sense of, one says "moonlight"), the<br />

just-perceivable difference increases (i.e. the<br />

discrimination is less), and the response goes nonlogarithmic.<br />

Either way, the large-scale, absolute<br />

calibration of the eye is a different issue.<br />

Can we tell the difference between a T4 and a T5.6<br />

set without a reference? I guess it's similar to<br />

musicians with "perfect pitch" who can absolutely<br />

identify a middle C or any other note. A few can,<br />

but many more can hit a note -say- a fifth higher<br />

than a given note, more so with practice. Similarly,<br />

are there a few individuals out there with the ability<br />

to recognise an absolute value of brightness? With<br />

many more of us able, with practice, to pick that<br />

one tone is -say- 3 stops down from another?<br />

Opinions? Authoritative research? References?<br />

Anecdotal evidence? Anyone?.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Page 608


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I have met some of these individuals with perfect<br />

pitch. Mostly they have broken the strings on my<br />

musical instrument by trying to tune it without a<br />

reference. The mechanics of the ear are such that<br />

the muscles react to certain frequencies. Closing<br />

down to prevent certain frequencies from getting<br />

through, and opening up to allow others. Amazing<br />

what you can learn from shooting documentaries. I<br />

don't think that has an analog to your question. I'm<br />

not sure if someone could tell the exact decibel<br />

level of sounds, without reference, which seems to<br />

be more inline with determining footcandles.<br />

However, I do know that with practice one can<br />

determine different colors lurking within others.<br />

Just ask graphic artists, Or motion Graphics<br />

shooters. That seems more in line picking out<br />

frequencies of sound.<br />

Steve ( there is a lot of blue in those red traffic<br />

lights) Gladstone<br />

Page 609


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

To put it briefly, the research I'm familiar with<br />

indicates that to use the<br />

eye as a comparator, it needs some sort of a<br />

reference, even when gauging<br />

absolute black. Also, cultural differences and<br />

personality may also influence this ability.<br />

Jessica Gallant<br />

I looked at the meters<br />

My Sekonic L-328 has some ND on the dome to<br />

make it match the flat disc<br />

My Spectra IV has a very light ND on the flat disc<br />

My Spectra Pro with the modern West German<br />

movement has a very slight ND on the flat disc<br />

My Spectra Pro with the Weston movement has no<br />

ND on either photosphere or flat disc<br />

My Sekonic studio meter is in Pittsburgh and won't<br />

answer the phone<br />

Most of my meter work has been done by Marty<br />

Satloff in NY but several of my meters have been<br />

re-calibrated or at least checked by Quality Light in<br />

Hollywood and all the Spectra’s were checked at<br />

Page 610


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Spectra while I was playing with their ft Lambert<br />

meter.<br />

Both analog pro's had Marty's low light conversions<br />

done to them.<br />

There's more info than anyone wanted to know.<br />

Mark<br />

Gentlemen,<br />

Marshall Macluen (of "the media is the message"<br />

fame) wrote extensively about this in The<br />

Gutenberg Galaxy. his terminology involved "hot"<br />

and "cool" technologies and I forget how he applied<br />

these, but I do remember his basic discussion on<br />

the ear and the eye.<br />

Marshall studied how technologies effected the<br />

social environment: moveable type (the Gutenberg<br />

bible was the first mechanically printed volume)<br />

Marconi's radio waves, and the film camera and TV.<br />

one contention involved the "differentiation of the<br />

ear and eye"<br />

Page 611


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

He maintains that the ear is capable of thousands<br />

of times more differentiation than the eye. It is a<br />

more sophisticated instrument capable of more<br />

range and more subtle detection’s within the<br />

expanded range. (I think this made the ear a hot<br />

technology and the eye a cool one- anyone?) I cant<br />

recall his case studies, but the eye was fractional<br />

compared to the ear.<br />

The book is valuable for anyone interested in the<br />

relationship between media and society. he traces<br />

print technology as paving the road to nationalism,<br />

and the breaking down of strong top down gov't to<br />

radio- but Its been years and I can no longer do<br />

him justice.<br />

he includes fascinating studies of showing films to<br />

aboriginals in Africa and citing how they react to<br />

the image and the editing (they couldn’t "read the<br />

film" so he linked in the amount of conditioning it<br />

takes to read a visual story and that it is heavily<br />

cultural and trained- as opposed to music which is<br />

far more cross cultural)<br />

I guess it was 13 years ago I read Marshall (college)<br />

and I was just beginning to shoot 16mm. the one<br />

thing I took away from the book was that 1/2 the<br />

Page 612


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

time an audience views a film in a theater - they<br />

are in absolute darkness. he likened it to the tribal<br />

flickering fire and believed it was one of our last<br />

tribal experiences.<br />

No doubt. but he left out the bar room and rock &<br />

roll.<br />

Caleb<br />

Although I don't remember the terms, in<br />

physiological psychology the ear is thought of as a<br />

sensory organ that takes it's input and breaks it<br />

down into it's component parts. This is why if we<br />

concentrate we can pick out and focus on one<br />

conversation in a crowded room, for example.<br />

They eye, on the other hand, is a sensory organ<br />

that takes it's input and constructs the complete<br />

image out of separate components. That is why we<br />

can view incomplete images, optical illusions,<br />

"inkblot tests", etc. and see complete images.<br />

Page 613


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jessica Gallant<br />

Page 614


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Monochrome<br />

I know you can Shoot in Color, and then in the<br />

Telecine, make it B+W.<br />

For Projection:<br />

Can the same be accomplished by printing onto<br />

B+W stock?<br />

Has anyone any info on Printing onto Optical sound<br />

Stock? I've heard of it, just don't know which films<br />

it was used in.<br />

Thanks, this is for a project coming up.<br />

Steven<br />

Yes, you can burn a print on B&W stock from a<br />

color negative, however because the print stock is<br />

only blue sensitive, the effect is as if you had a very<br />

deep red filter on the lens, and because of the<br />

orange mask, you have to crank the printer very<br />

slowly to get enough exposure.<br />

Page 615


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

You can get around this by using a panchromatic<br />

interpositive film to make your print on.<br />

Optical sound stock is a very contrasty blue<br />

sensitive film. You can use it as print stock or even<br />

in-camera but the results are very.... unusual...<br />

Scott Dorsey<br />

Back in the eighties, when B+W was cheaper than<br />

color, I used to strike thousands of miles of<br />

workprint footage on B+W from color negatives.<br />

That used to be very cost effective, while very bad<br />

looking, no contrast, way too grainy. Editor didn't<br />

even know whether the talent's dress was blue or<br />

red : That was to be revealed by the answer print<br />

on the press premiere.:-)<br />

We had one recent issue at the Cannes '95 Festival<br />

with the French entry "La Haine"(Hate) by Matthieu<br />

Kassowitz. Pay channel Canal+ contracted a color<br />

print, while Matthieu wanted to shoot in B+W. No<br />

way ! No color, no money ! Then, cinematographer<br />

Pierre Haim recalled a method we had been<br />

experimenting together years ago on a short film :<br />

Page 616


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

release print on sound stock. As Scott Dorsey<br />

pointed out, that would have been to contrasty, so<br />

the trick was to shorten the processing time by<br />

half, benefiting from a necessary contrast increase<br />

without going ortho. At the time, 100% of the<br />

sound stock in French labs was AFGA, with<br />

negative perfs. Producer Christophe Rossignon had<br />

deal with Kodak. They provided an extra batch of<br />

positive perforated optical stock, and more than<br />

300 prints were struck that way. But beware of the<br />

cost ! Price of optical sound stock is four times the<br />

price of color positive 5386 stock !<br />

Gus Roos<br />

I shot a film in 1993 in super 16 on Plus negative<br />

7231 (64/80 asa). I did some test before. It's great.<br />

You get the grain of 7296 pushed one stop and the<br />

exposure rating of 7245. So that wrote off the<br />

7222 Double -X stuff (200/250 asa). Fortunately<br />

this film called for hard lighting (something I rarely<br />

do) and I was glad in some instances. Although it<br />

does have a really interesting B &W grain structure<br />

Page 617


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

from the old days that you don't get with all the<br />

new T grain stuff, the speed was a drawback.<br />

Imagine night exteriors:-(. Guys who use to do<br />

large set-ups in the old days with even slower films<br />

must have been pouring on the foot candles.<br />

Exposure latitude is another factor. Talk about easy<br />

to get rich blacks. All in all, despite all those<br />

pitfalls the final film looked all right. Saw it on a<br />

large screen, it's that typical BW image from way<br />

back, that we would not have just playing around<br />

with modern color stock.<br />

Probably would not be enough market to<br />

repackage the T-max stuff for motion picture use.<br />

I wonder what the sales figure are for BW compared<br />

to color stuff.<br />

Probably under 1% or something small like that.<br />

Would they really sell much more if it was T-max<br />

based??? I think not. Ever seen a producer's or<br />

distributor's face change when you speak the<br />

words "Black and White"? Of course Spielberg did it<br />

(looked magnificent) but in the real world...<br />

Daniel Villeneuve<br />

Page 618


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Yeah, you're right that B&W is a minimal amount of<br />

Kodak's business, and according to my local Kodak<br />

rep, people like the crappy image quality of the<br />

current stocks because most productions currently<br />

using B&W are looking for a "retro look."<br />

However, how expensive can it be for them to re-<br />

perforate existing stocks and pass some<br />

information out to labs about handling it? There is<br />

not a lot of product development involved here,<br />

since they have already got the material for still<br />

photography pretty well refined at this point.<br />

In the meantime, I can recommend the Ilford B&W<br />

stocks. They aren't as tight looking as the T-Max<br />

film, but they have a hell of a better grey scale than<br />

Plus-X and Double-X.<br />

Also, I want some high speed B&W stocks. Four-X<br />

reversal is gone, and let's not even talk about the<br />

image quality THAT stuff had. But there's nothing<br />

replacing it.<br />

--Scott<br />

Page 619


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I mean no disrespect, but as to why EK doesn't<br />

market the T-Max emulsion for motion picture<br />

stock, I don't think it's a matter of economics, at<br />

least not entirely. They're always improving color<br />

stocks, so why not B&W? They might not sell more<br />

B&W film, but they would at least show a<br />

commitment to improving the medium. The only<br />

real hindrance for the acceptance of T-Max Mo Pic<br />

stock is that it would require special development,<br />

but if Kodak really has the motivation they could<br />

successfully market it. After all, they tried to<br />

market much stranger things in the past...like still<br />

photo disc film.<br />

Just some thoughts,<br />

Layne Uyeno<br />

Four X Reversal was a LOT better than Four X<br />

Negative, which was truly hideous!<br />

The problems with B&W T grain stocks (and EK did<br />

one test batch apparently) for cine use is that they<br />

need extremely long fix times to clear the pink tint<br />

Page 620


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

that the neg. has. Plus, they are better in TMax<br />

developer than in D96... so labs would have to<br />

retool, and few want those hassles. (Not that<br />

they're big ones...)<br />

Me, I am looking forward to trying Double X and<br />

HP5+ in EK's new XTOL developer....<br />

Jeff "soup me" Kreines<br />

Prewashing will reduce the pink tint problem<br />

(which is caused by residual sensitizing dyes). But<br />

honestly, who cares that the negatives are a bit<br />

pink? The print stock isn't going to change.<br />

Yes, the T-Max does look a lot better in the<br />

appropriate chemistry than it does in D-76.<br />

However, it still looks a whole lot better in D-76<br />

than Double-X does. Retooling for the new<br />

chemistry would be good, but still not essential.<br />

XTOL is pretty nasty... it's got a heavy silver<br />

solvent, so it loses fine shadow detail in the<br />

process of reducing granularity. It honestly looks a<br />

whole lot like Microdol-X to me. I'll stick with D-23<br />

for my still work.<br />

Page 621


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

--Scott<br />

Page 622


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Moonlight<br />

After reading an interview that touched on how to<br />

represent moonlight (can't remember who it was-hopefully<br />

someone can remind me), I adopted that<br />

cinematographer's method, which is to think of<br />

moonlight as *pale* rather than blue.<br />

Just that slight change in the way I thought about<br />

the light made a vast improvement in my own<br />

lighting for moonlit scenes. My feeling is that the<br />

best way to represent moonlight is to "suggest" it<br />

by manipulating the relative color temperatures of<br />

the units used for the scene, without making it<br />

really obvious to the audience.<br />

To that effect, I generally try to make the<br />

"moonlight" in a scene appear almost white, but<br />

slightly cooler than any artificial sources present.<br />

For example, if I have an interior with a tungsten<br />

unit for moonlight at the window and a table lamp<br />

inside the room, I'll gel the moonlight unit with 1/4<br />

or 1/2 CTB (depending on how cold I want it--1/4<br />

usually does it). If I have an HMI outside, but<br />

tungsten inside, I'll actually warm up that HMI to<br />

kill off some of the blue.<br />

Page 623


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I think the same way when setting an ambient light<br />

level for a night interior room. I sometimes like to<br />

set a warm area around a practical (say, a<br />

bedlamp), and have the light fall off into a murky,<br />

but pale, darkness. This works well for some<br />

stories, not so well for others.<br />

I think the key is moderation, unless you're lighting<br />

bad erotica.<br />

Chris Ray<br />

Personally I hate the convention of blue moonlight,<br />

though it does have its place....it certainly works in<br />

those big night exteriors in 'Michael Collins.' On a<br />

physiological level, at low light levels you are<br />

seeing with the rods of your eyes, therefore mostly<br />

in monochrome. When this issue came up on the<br />

AOL Cine board, Stan McClain mentioned a neat<br />

solution which a DP he'd assisted for used on a<br />

movie 25 years ago. The movie was 'Jonathan<br />

Livingston Seagull,' and I'm sorry to have forgotten<br />

the DP's name. The movie was about seagulls,<br />

obviously, so there was a lot of footage of them<br />

Page 624


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

flying, including at night. Well, you can't light up<br />

the sky at night. So the DP had the ingenious idea<br />

of shooting that footage day for night, which was a<br />

good idea as there would be no missing car<br />

headlights or anything else to give it away. AND he<br />

shot on black and white, probably filtering orange<br />

or red to darken the sky, which he printed with a<br />

slight bluish tint onto the regular color print. Stan<br />

McClain thought it worked great. I haven't seen the<br />

movie but it certainly sounds good, don't you<br />

think?<br />

I haven't had to do many night exteriors which<br />

were outside an urban location. In a city I think it's<br />

not hard to motivate light from other sources than<br />

moonlight: streetlights, windows, store signs, etc.<br />

These can be many different colors: warmish as if<br />

from windows, orangey-brown for sodium -vapor,<br />

greenish-blue for mercury vapor, etc. It can look<br />

extremely natural and unlit, whereas with 'movie<br />

moonlight' I think you are counting on a movie<br />

convention to carry the idea.<br />

A counter -example: in the recent 'Swing Blade'<br />

there are some night scenes with a very obvious,<br />

very blue source, though only on the principal<br />

action--the background falls off completely. In<br />

scenes which take place on the small-town street<br />

Page 625


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

there are even mercury vapor-streetlights reading<br />

greenish in the background. This movie looks to<br />

have been shot completely under the gun so I don't<br />

mean to slam the DP, but the lighting really stood<br />

out to me, and not in a good way. Why not have<br />

used pools of greenish light like those streetlights?<br />

As it is, you see what you're supposed to see, but it<br />

looks like it's spot-lit.<br />

Unfortunately on a low-budget movie you are often<br />

lacking in the prep time which would allow you to<br />

come up with a simple and effective solution to a<br />

problem like this. The fall-back is, I guess, to put<br />

up a big blue light and say it's the moon. What<br />

watching this scene impressed upon me was: never<br />

let yourself get cornered this way!<br />

AT<br />

At a talk a couple of years back a gaffer asked<br />

Steven Poster for any tips in lighting night scenes.<br />

Mr. Poster said that he adds a little bit of green to<br />

his lights in addition to some blue. I have never<br />

Page 626


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

experimented with that concept, but it does seem<br />

interesting.<br />

My vote for best lit night scene in [my] recent<br />

memory: Forrest Gump. Just an ever so slight<br />

evidence of blue if any at all.<br />

My vote for worst lit night scene (interior): The<br />

Brothers McMullen. The DP seems to interpret<br />

moonlight as a bright blue Times Square neon<br />

sign, but since the house was in Long Island I<br />

doubt that was the motivation for it. ;-)<br />

My vote for best day-for-night (color) scene: Jaws.<br />

My mouth dropped when I found out the exterior<br />

night scenes of the boat were shot day-for-night.<br />

Vey convincing.<br />

My vote for worst day-for-night (color) scene:<br />

Jesus Christ Superstar. It was a "black and blue"<br />

film.<br />

Jus' my opinion,<br />

Layne Uyeno<br />

We have about a 3/4 moon tonight, very bright<br />

where we are (in the country) so I spent a couple<br />

Page 627


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

minutes out there looking at the garden. If you<br />

think about it, it's just reflected daylight (bounced<br />

off the moon) and appears to be about as blue as<br />

daylight is. Looked blue at night compared to<br />

tungsten, but not deep blue.<br />

Such a sharp hard shadow...<br />

Jeff "Mister Moonlight" Kreines<br />

Here's the poop on Sling Blade. I talked the with<br />

film's color timer, Dan Muscarella, for an upcoming<br />

article on Timers. He told me about his experience<br />

with Sling Blade. Billy Bob Thornton was pres ent for<br />

every timing session and very diligent about the<br />

film's look. They shot on Kodak, CFI used Kodak<br />

intermediate stocks all the way to the Answer print.<br />

However, unbeknownst to Dan, the IN was taken to<br />

a Lab in Canada for the release prints and was<br />

printed onto Fuji stock. Fuji positive stock does not<br />

react 1 to 1 like Kodak. A Kodak-timed IN for<br />

Kodak release would have to be completely<br />

adjusted for a Fuji release. In Sling Blade's case. It<br />

wasn't. The end result of all of this is a shift to<br />

Page 628


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

GREEN in the release prints. Thornton and<br />

Muscarella had given the film a wonderful warm<br />

"goldenish" hue that is entirely absent from the<br />

film's theatrical release. Hmmm... I wonder if that'll<br />

change for the video release.<br />

Just one more headache to think about. :-)<br />

Chris Probst<br />

Nestor Alemendros once said that it was easier to<br />

do day-for-night and dusk-for-night in color<br />

because you can use blue as a way of "signalling"<br />

the audience that the scene was supposed to be<br />

night. Silent movies used to tint night scenes blue,<br />

even if they were shot obviously in daylight, so the<br />

color blue in this case could be seen as<br />

symbolizing night. I feel that moonlight should feel<br />

cooler than tungsten light - but it should also be<br />

lower in saturation, which is harder to accomplish.<br />

But what color you use should be determined by<br />

the script - realism is relative anyway. Most of us<br />

can barely see by moonlight while in a city; but<br />

once I was in the middle of the desert at night<br />

Page 629


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

under a full moon and it looked so bright and<br />

produced such crisp shadows that it felt like a bad<br />

day-for-night shot in a movie!<br />

An interesting note: in the French movie version of<br />

"Cyrano", the D.P. used blue moonlight in most of<br />

the scenes, even though Cyrano talks about the<br />

"saffron moon". There is even a matte shot with a<br />

yellow moon in the sky above streets bathed in<br />

blue moonlight.<br />

Anyway, if I feel that the scene emotionally needs<br />

cold lighting, I make the moonlight blue. But if the<br />

scene needs warmer lighting, I either make it white<br />

or I suggest that sodium streetlights are lighting<br />

the scene and use orange gels on the lights.<br />

David Mullen<br />

This is he technique Second Unit DP David Nowell<br />

used for the night flying sequences of "Flight of the<br />

Intruder" He did use a deep red filter to darken the<br />

sky, but tried to avoid the sky and shot downwards<br />

toward the Intruder jets and placed them against<br />

the ground, the water, or clouds. The resultant<br />

Page 630


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

B&W negative was printed onto color stock with<br />

blue coloration. Since the aircraft were gray and<br />

run without navigation (wingtip) lights when in<br />

combat, it was totally a believable effect.<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

I've always felt that the appropriate amount of blue<br />

in moonlight (none to massive) should be decided<br />

from project to project using the same criteria that<br />

we use to determine how much color and what type<br />

of color palette will be used for the daytime<br />

footage.<br />

I don't think that it's always necessary for<br />

moonlight to appear absolutely "realistic." For<br />

some projects, it's appropriate that it be more<br />

expressionistic. It's one of those areas of<br />

photography where the DP is more or less forced to<br />

make an aesthetic/stylistic decision that effects the<br />

tone & mood of the piece, and how the audience<br />

will feel about what they're seeing.<br />

I think that the convention of blue moonlight<br />

derives from at least two items: 1) As others have<br />

Page 631


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

said, when we see moonlight (reflected sunlight) it<br />

is generally seen with a tungsten reference, so it<br />

appears blue. 2) The skylight we first see at dawn<br />

before the sun rises, and the skylight we see last at<br />

night after the sun has set (before total darkness)<br />

is blue. The following "moonlight" is of such low<br />

intensity that we don't see color very well, which is<br />

similar to what happens when we view colors under<br />

a heavily saturated source. (Colors complementary<br />

to the source color turn black, blue & black are<br />

hard to tell apart, etc.) Perhaps these factors cause<br />

us to subconsciously think of moonlight as a "blue<br />

wash." In an area lit solely by moonlight, our eyes<br />

adjust, so that we're "seeing into the shadows."<br />

They also (theoretically) adjust to "time-out" the<br />

blue. But we still have trouble differentiating color<br />

at such low light levels, so we still have the same<br />

(monochrome-ish?) effect of a "color wash."<br />

For these reasons, I think that a more "realistic"<br />

moonlight effect for a "realistic-type" film, would<br />

be moonlight that is not so much "less blue," as<br />

lower contrast. True, the lower contrast will<br />

desaturate the blue moonlight, but it effects other<br />

aspects as well:<br />

Page 632


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

A low-contrast approach mimics what happens to<br />

your eyes in a an area lit totally by moonlight,<br />

where your eyes adjust to "see into the shadows."<br />

There are fewer deep shadows (especially close by),<br />

and very few "highlights."<br />

Deep shadows may occur further away from us, but<br />

perhaps they are not quite as "deep" as they would<br />

be if our eyes were adjusted to a brighter artificial<br />

source?<br />

I've seen some "low-contrast" approaches to night<br />

exteriors, and have been wanting to try such an<br />

approach for some time now, but haven't had a<br />

opportunity to try it on a project on which it would<br />

be appropriate. (Maybe a SLASHER film, eh?) :)<br />

Has anyone had success using low-cons or some<br />

other method to achieve such a "realistic"<br />

moonlight effect? How did you achieve it?<br />

Sean Peacock<br />

Page 633


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Movies as Music<br />

I was talking to someone earlier today who'd just<br />

seen Armageddon and really enjoyed it, of course,<br />

he said, it'll get slammed by the critics.<br />

He then said that we had a strange way of<br />

reviewing film if you compared it to the way music<br />

is reviewed.<br />

With music you have reviewers that specialise in<br />

classical, or rock, or pop or blues or....whereas in<br />

film we have really only the one prominent kind of<br />

reviewer and that they equate roughly with the<br />

classical music reviewer.<br />

So of course they hate Armageddon, it's rock & roll.<br />

I got to thinking about it, I've spent the day sitting<br />

on the cliff watching the tide come in and then go<br />

back out, and there's an interesting analogy to be<br />

drawn here.<br />

Up until fairly recently the movie Industry has been<br />

stuck in that music period before the mid 60's<br />

Page 634


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

where the studio's ruled and the artists were<br />

trampled.<br />

We've just got to the stage where the artists are<br />

setting up their own record labels, sorta late 60's<br />

apple and rolling stone records, and we're also just<br />

going through the Sergeant Pepper, Itchycoo Park,<br />

Wheels on Fire, special effects era.<br />

So soon we'll all settle down and just use the<br />

effects rather than over -use them.<br />

How about movies shot on DV and transferred to<br />

35mm as Punk?<br />

So, where does that leave me? wanting to make the<br />

filmic equivalent of It's Only Rock & Roll that's<br />

where.<br />

Drawing on all the source material but putting it<br />

together on a way that's fresh and timeless.<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Page 635


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Aaah. I wish. Can't resist a reply though, even from<br />

frantic, wintry Sydney.<br />

Even within the sectors of the music industry,<br />

populism tends to be frowned on by the critics.<br />

Once the 3 Tenors traded in on their success, they<br />

were condemned in the eyes of the serious opera<br />

reviewers. David Helfgott (to take a popularly<br />

filmed example) may be technically clumsy, but he<br />

brought Rachmaninov and others to packed houses<br />

who were genuinely moved by the performances.<br />

But the critics slated him. Perhaps a Helfgott<br />

concert is like a good script badly shot and edited.<br />

(to come back on to topic).<br />

Also, the ""rock'n'roll"" movies tend to get plenty of<br />

""reviews"" of -shall we say - the uninformed,<br />

uncritical kind that make one look to the<br />

ownership of the newspaper/TV network and of the<br />

film studio. Generally it's a different type of<br />

reviewer or critic who deals with art-house, and<br />

who probably feels obliged to slate the<br />

blockbusters just to bring a bit of balance back.<br />

Page 636


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

The primary story line may have been rock & roll,<br />

but the slick pristine commercial vision (as in tv<br />

commercial vision. . . meant as a compliment) that<br />

almost can be perceived as a movie within the<br />

movie was more like classical music . . . I even had<br />

flashes that some of the images were derivative of<br />

Robert Frank . . . in color. I am talking about the<br />

constant cutaways to the farm, or the street scenes<br />

of the cities. I don't remember seeing a second<br />

unit credit, but I would venture to say that Michael<br />

Bay and John Schwartzman had tremendous input<br />

in creating stylish, impeccably composed, well<br />

choreographed and stunningly art directed images<br />

adjunct to the core events of the movie.<br />

Has anyone noticed that the majority of<br />

mainstream movies are running longer than the<br />

traditional 90 minutes these days? I guess it's<br />

good for Gross Global<br />

Product.<br />

Page 637


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

-Mark Simon<br />

Just for argument's sake, some ""rock&roll"" can<br />

suck also and maybe ""Armageddon"" was<br />

mediocre even within the confines of the genre.<br />

I'm sure that a number of critics knew going in<br />

what kind of film it was trying to be and might<br />

have judged it on its own merits and still found it<br />

lacking.<br />

Also, is it wrong for critics to have higher<br />

standards than audiences, or wish that the<br />

audience would demand better films?<br />

There has always been a gap between ""serious""<br />

film critics who dabble in theory and essay writing,<br />

and those who are more consumer advocates. Do<br />

we really need more Susan Grangers and Joel<br />

Seigels who seem to like everything? Should<br />

critics, who see a lot more films than anyone else,<br />

ignore their trained reactions and just try and<br />

guess what the ""average"" viewer will enjoy (like<br />

Page 638


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

those Variety reviews which try to guess how well<br />

the film will do at the box office?)<br />

Is it so bad when film critics don't agree with our<br />

own reactions?<br />

Personally, if I liked a movie, I don't really need the<br />

confirmation of critics that I have good taste. I<br />

guess all I want from a critic is consistency so I can<br />

judge what the movie must really be like, taking his<br />

or her biases into consideration when reading the<br />

review.<br />

Now that I'm done playing devil's advocate (for my<br />

brother-in-law's sake, who is a classical music<br />

critic), I do agree that critics should be more open<br />

to the broad range of possibilities in filmmaking.<br />

They tend to either equate documentary realism as<br />

the highest state of film art (something Hitchcock<br />

and Truffaut discussed) and thus ignore the films<br />

of Michael Powell, for example, or they review films<br />

mainly for their literary value.<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 639


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Pardon my presumption. Just found your guys' site.<br />

It's now one of my favorites.<br />

I am not a cinematographer. Got an MFA from<br />

Columbia (under Andrew Sarris) in Film History &<br />

Criticism in 1972 during the great Scorsese-<br />

Ashby-Coppola-Don Siegel/Dirty Harry decade.<br />

Naturally I just retired from a career in Federal Law<br />

enforcement. Be that as it may - regarding the<br />

analogy of music and films. Critics and audiences<br />

alike take one very basic film element for granted:<br />

You have to know where to put the camera. Ford<br />

did. So did Hawks. I'd love to see Gene Siskel's<br />

home movies. Or better yet still photos of his<br />

summer vacation(s). Every time I watch the opening<br />

chase sequence of Carpenter's remake of 'The<br />

Thing', I'm blown away by his handling of the<br />

helicopter, the dog, the guy with the rifle, and that<br />

deep snow. You know where each is in relation to<br />

the other and know exactly what's going on at all<br />

times..<br />

When I think of what I went through for a tempo<br />

and editing exercise in film school with an 8 mm(!)<br />

camera and a tennis ball to make a coherent 5-<br />

Page 640


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

minute film as the ball bounced anonymously<br />

from room to room...<br />

One last analogy regarding film and criticism: I'll<br />

never forget the take on critics of one of my<br />

teacher/filmmakers in a documentary class -<br />

'Saying that a(n American) movie is good because it<br />

is well-photographed is like saying 'Moby Dick' is a<br />

masterpiece because it has a nice type face.'<br />

Peter Goodspeed<br />

Except that the artistry with which a story is<br />

photographed has substantially more to do with<br />

the viewers' appreciation of the story than the type<br />

face has to do with the reading experience. Try to<br />

visualize a poorly photographed CITIZEN KANE, for<br />

example.<br />

--Wade Ramsey<br />

Page 641


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

At first, it seems like a clever statement.<br />

But in fact, it's quite stupid. It reduces the role of<br />

the cinematographer to less than the role of a<br />

typesetter. It says that great cinematography is<br />

essentially unimportant, to be assumed, when<br />

there are films in which the shooting is as or more<br />

important than the script or performances.<br />

Imagine, say, Citizen Kane as shot by, oh, I won't<br />

name anyone, but think 70's sitcom style. Would it<br />

lose something?<br />

A more apt but stupid clever statement would be to<br />

say, oh, that Bob Dylan's genius comes solely<br />

from his guitar playing. It may be a component<br />

of his music, and an important one, but it's hardly<br />

the most important one.<br />

BTW, Geoff, great original post.<br />

Jeff ""going back to a musical analogy"" Kreines<br />

Page 642


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

For once I have to Disagree with you Jeff. DO you<br />

think a typesetter goes home and thinks about how<br />

unimportant his job is or when he walks by a book<br />

store with his family, do you think he proudly<br />

makes a reference to that book being ""his"". I'll bet<br />

he is real proud of his work and doesn't gloat<br />

because the NY Time book review doesn't mention<br />

him. Of course the author thinks nothing of the<br />

typesetter in his thought of the book, but he is an<br />

intricate part of the entire process. Yes there is a<br />

relationship of the cinematographer to the director,<br />

but how many times is that directors work his. In<br />

other words, how many times is the director the<br />

author of the material that he is translating to<br />

celluloid. I don't think the writer of the screenplay<br />

sits there and says; ""I have a great<br />

cinematographer in mind for this story"", yet the<br />

cinematographer is no less important to the piece<br />

than the director. But so is the wardrobe person,<br />

the set designer and the like. They are no less<br />

important to the piece. Maybe in human terms<br />

considered less important (because of societies<br />

ridiculous teachings that there are winners and<br />

losers in life). It's all how you look at it. If you want<br />

to take it as an insult, then you are correct in your<br />

statement but if you want to look at it as a<br />

Page 643


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

statement that says there is more to any film than<br />

any one element then you'll begin to see beyond<br />

the ""put down"".<br />

As I've said before, I've seen some great movies<br />

that had lousy cinematography and I've seen some<br />

lousy movies that had great cinematography. Just<br />

shows that a film is more than any one person.<br />

++++saying...Bob Dylan's genius comes solely<br />

from his guitar playing. It may be a component of<br />

his music, and an important one, but it's hardly the<br />

most important one.++++<br />

I know many who think as a writer of music, Bob<br />

Dylan is a genius but as a performer he sucks. I<br />

feel that way myself. I had the (opposite of<br />

pleasure) of working with him six years ago and his<br />

attitude on life sucks. If you didn't know he is<br />

considered a great song writer you would think he<br />

was nothing more than a bitter asshole. Doesn't<br />

make him any less a genius, but I would much<br />

rather here other people perform his songs than<br />

him singing his own. In fact more people have<br />

made better cuts and been a lot more successful at<br />

Page 644


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

his songs than him. He even bitterly admits that<br />

and history has recorded that fact.<br />

As for your guitar statement, I would love for you<br />

to talk to some of the greats and ask them how<br />

unimportant their guitar is. I think you'd find that<br />

you soon insult them with any reference to their<br />

guitar being just part of the equation. Les Paul<br />

made his whole career not on the music he wrote<br />

or sang, but on the guitar he sold to everyone. Ask<br />

a classical musician about his instrument and tell<br />

him that his instrument is merely part of the<br />

equation and you'll not make many friends or get<br />

into the concert for free.<br />

Whole companies; Steinway"", etc have made<br />

careers on having the best instruments and any<br />

good musician will tell you they are only as good<br />

as<br />

their instruments.<br />

++++Imagine, say, Citizen Kane as shot by, oh, I<br />

won't name anyone, but think 70's sitcom style.<br />

Would it lose something? +++++<br />

Page 645


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I think it is impossible to make any reference to a<br />

film, the person, who made it, and when it was<br />

made and try to give the scenario of ""what do you<br />

think would happen if they made it now?"". Kane<br />

was a masterpiece of it's time. It still is. But it was<br />

made when it was by a person who was successful<br />

when he was and it could never be duplicated or<br />

even come close. I have yet to see anyone agree<br />

that any remake of anything from the past is even<br />

close to the original. There are too many factors in<br />

film making, when it was done, and who did it to<br />

try to make a weak comparison like ""what if???"".<br />

But you need not use a great like Kane either. No<br />

average film could be made the same way by any<br />

two different people.<br />

WalterNY<br />

Typesetting is an art. In many ways it is as<br />

underrated as cinematography is by the public. If<br />

you don't believe the font and it's layout can affect<br />

your mood then why are there so many? Having<br />

Page 646


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

thrown that out, I would compare the book's<br />

binding to the theater seats and the type face to all<br />

the accoutrements that affect our viewing of the<br />

projected images. So is the statement valid? I don't<br />

think so. It's like comparing apples to oranges.<br />

Can't be done (though many try).<br />

Great post Geoff. It really made me think. Though I<br />

would agree that there were reviewers bashing<br />

music before it could be recorded and stage plays<br />

long before films came along. I also note that<br />

reviewers are called critics. It's in their job<br />

description.<br />

Eric Swenson<br />

Will watch any bad film if even one craft has done<br />

an excellent job.<br />

And why do people have libraries of hard cover<br />

cloth bound books and no one prides themselves<br />

in paperbacks. People who like books take pleasure<br />

in the form of a book (e.g. the typesetting, the<br />

Page 647


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

binding, the paper quality, etc). When I started the<br />

genre of commercials for the major publishers. I<br />

was told by many that these days, the cover of a<br />

book is as important to the sales as many of the<br />

authors. In fact some say that certain authors book<br />

covers are more important that the literary quality<br />

of the author. That comes from the vice president<br />

of Bantam books so if you want to complain about<br />

that statement call her.<br />

Where years ago the cost of a paperback cover was<br />

on the order of a few cents, some have covers that<br />

cost up to a dollar per unit. Quite expensive when<br />

your selling a book.<br />

Film is a collaborative effort utilizing the talents<br />

and skills of many people, towards a common goal.<br />

The director has the following three elements at his<br />

disposal:<br />

Page 648<br />

a) the story<br />

b) the actors performance<br />

c) the cinematography


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Personally I believe that cinematography has been<br />

neglected in the recent years, but is making a<br />

strong comeback.<br />

It's a shame because it's a third of the potential<br />

resources that you have at hand to tell your story.<br />

Proponents of ""pure cinema"" will argue it counts<br />

for more than a third. Murnau may have agreed<br />

with that statement, just take a look at something<br />

like ""The Last Laugh"".<br />

Just my opinion.<br />

Feli<br />

Surely a really great film is when everyone has<br />

done their job well - and a really great director<br />

sees to it that everyone does their job well AND<br />

with the same effect. That's why CITIZEN KANE<br />

scores well in all the ""10 best movies"" lists. Not<br />

only do the cinematographers love it, so do the<br />

actors, literary critics, editors, semiologists etc.<br />

And they love it even more because every great<br />

Page 649


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

thing about the film is in tune with every other<br />

great thing.<br />

But there are plenty of good films worth watching<br />

that gain their strength from excellence in some<br />

areas despite being only average in others. They<br />

just aren't in the top 10 of all time.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

PS. Not sure how Casablanca and GWTW earn their<br />

places in the top 10 according to the above theory.<br />

Discuss.<br />

Try telling that to the editors.<br />

For that matter, try watching a Hitchcock film<br />

without the Bernard Herrmann score (or with it<br />

when Hitch ran the scene sans music).<br />

Notwithstanding his visual and directorial<br />

excellence, I doubt if Hitchcock would have gained<br />

such eminence without his composer. The stories<br />

were all the same.<br />

Page 650


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

BTW - - Feli - you should<br />

revise your rates. One fiftieth of a cent?? ;-)<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Atlab Australia<br />

Not meaning to belabor the point, but the previous<br />

Moby Dick remark was a compliment to the<br />

typeface itself, not how the book was set, or the<br />

craft of the typesetter. It would be like<br />

complimenting the cinematographer on the shape<br />

of, say, a 1.85 frame -- it's a choice often made by<br />

others (aspect ratio, or type family), a restriction<br />

that the typesetter or cinematographer lives with<br />

and works under. I have great respect for<br />

typesetters -- my father was a printer, and I often<br />

spent long days at Ludlow and Linotype machines<br />

and watching ""strippers"" cut lith film to burn<br />

plates.<br />

All dead technology, of course!<br />

Let's leave Dylan as off topic -- but ""Time out of<br />

Mind"" is a great album... not up to ""Blood on the<br />

Page 651


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Tracks"" or ""Blonde on Blonde"", but pretty damn<br />

good. But he doesn't need defending...<br />

The only reason I mentioned Citizen Kane is that I<br />

was reading yet another Welles bio and it sprung<br />

to mind as a reference everyone would know.<br />

Jeff ""the clarifier"" Kreines<br />

In fact, if you look at many books, especially poetry<br />

books, you will see the selection of typeface,<br />

sizing, kerning, line spacing and line breaks, etc.<br />

have a great effect on the final appreciation by the<br />

reader for the book. In fact, paper selection and<br />

finishing materials for the case binding are often<br />

endlessly debated, too for fine books (not<br />

necessarily those produced for mass paperback<br />

consumption.) And the ""dumbing down"" of the<br />

craft of typeface design and typesetting are<br />

debated with as much fire as we reserve for DV<br />

cameras.<br />

The actress who plays ""old Rose"" in Titanic has<br />

made a career of producing fine-art printed books<br />

Page 652


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

which have been bought and displayed in many of<br />

the world's most prominent art museums.<br />

So the analogy both slights fine cinematography<br />

and fine typography.<br />

Mark ""I'll take Gill Sans over Arial anyday""<br />

Schlicher<br />

<br />

Page 653<br />

c) the cinematography<br />

Also is, The Wardrobe, The set decoration, Music,<br />

Sound Effects, Special effects, Sound design,<br />

Editing. I'm sure there are more.<br />

I don't think that <strong>Cinematography</strong> has been<br />

neglected in recent years. In that I believe you<br />

mean cinematographic technique. I see TOO many<br />

movies that have just Amazing <strong>Cinematography</strong>,<br />

but are lacking in Story, performance, and or<br />

Direction. Lot's of technique.


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

so its rock and roll, but is it good rock and roll?<br />

I hate to disagree, but there are a lot of very<br />

different types of movie reviewers, I’m sure if I<br />

looked at a month old newspaper with<br />

Armageddon ads, there would be some quotes<br />

from reviewers who liked it.<br />

as for DV features being punk rock, punk rock was<br />

not about a technical way of making music, it was<br />

about an attitude (after all, a lot of it still used the<br />

same blues progressions chuck berry used and the<br />

same instruments). I can't wait for punk attitude to<br />

hit films. I feel like contemporary films are in 1976<br />

with Billy Joel playing on the radio, and some very<br />

frustrated young musicians are out there not<br />

wanting to be Pink Floyd or Elton john. I certainly<br />

hope things in film are about to explode.<br />

---o.fenech<br />

Page 654


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The cinematographer in a film is not the typesetter<br />

of a finished manuscript. He is the film equivalent<br />

of the part of the Herman Melville which is<br />

describing the surroundings, setting the<br />

atmosphere and mood and everything else that<br />

makes you picture the whale chase in your mind as<br />

you read the story.<br />

Bruce Douglas<br />

The thrust of my remark was to disparage neither<br />

bookmaking nor cinematography - two of my life<br />

interests. It was to disparage -within the specific<br />

context of Geoff's original great post - the quality<br />

of American film criticism. Europeans have long<br />

held American cinematography in a higher regard<br />

than over here. Admiring the photographic work<br />

within a great film is one part of understanding the<br />

totality of the work. Some critics think, though,<br />

Page 655


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

that that is all there is. Conversely they think<br />

mediocre films or worse have no photographic<br />

merit.<br />

Carpenter’s remake of 'The Thing' was pretty much<br />

panned by the critical press. But it's opening<br />

helicopter/sleddog/rifleman sequences are<br />

certainly worthy of inclusion in a course on editing,<br />

tempo, shot establishment, etc. And, like<br />

'Armageddon' you guys would recognize even more<br />

valuable material and/or technique in them than<br />

even the most<br />

film-literate viewer.<br />

Phg<br />

Exactly!! Although I love beautiful and appropriate<br />

type faces and graphic design, my appreciation for<br />

Moby Dick would not change one iota whether I<br />

read it in a hand-written manuscript (so long as it<br />

was readable), typewritten pages, or the most<br />

elegantly presented layout and typeface--in my<br />

Page 656


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

mind, where the story is taking place--the images<br />

would be exactly the same.<br />

Film images replace the mental images as you<br />

watch a story. The contribution of all the<br />

craftspeople and artists becomes an important<br />

part of those images, naturally, and cannot be<br />

discounted. But the ""look"" of the images has a<br />

powerful effect on our appreciation of a good<br />

story, at least it does for me.<br />

No typeface has any effect on my mental image of<br />

the story I read. –<br />

Wade Ramsey<br />

Re DV being punk, I am not so sure. It might also<br />

be something less wonderful... but Pixelvision<br />

might be closer to punk. And perhaps Betacam<br />

transferred to video is like, well, that selfproduced,<br />

self-promoted CD of lounge music that<br />

even the friends of the artist don't listen to. (Got<br />

Page 657


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

one in the mail once from someone named<br />

""Skipper...)<br />

I suppose the Dylan and Welles examples make<br />

some sense, as both of them were considered<br />

godlike in their mid-20s, and found it hard to top<br />

(or equal) their younger work...<br />

Jeff ""not easy being a prodigy, is it?"" Kreines<br />

>>'Saying that a(n American) movie is good<br />

because it is well-photographed is like saying<br />

'Moby Dick' is a masterpiece because it has a nice<br />

type face.'>><br />

I can see the sense in the quote but I think some of<br />

the members are seeing something that's not<br />

there.<br />

I was trained in the theatre where I was taught the<br />

play is everything. If someone remar ks how nice<br />

you lit this or that then you'd basically failed in<br />

your job. When I started to shoot promos the<br />

opposite seemed to apply and for that reason I<br />

Page 658


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

stayed away from them for ages. Then when I did<br />

start shooting them I soon learned that if you<br />

applied the same reasoning then you were out on<br />

your backside. So I did a complete u-turn and<br />

started to throw the camera about and to light in a<br />

way that it was ""visible"".<br />

It seems to me what the above quote is saying is<br />

""most"" American films have no spine but a pretty<br />

skin. While there's nothing wrong with admiring a<br />

pretty skin don't go calling the body great or a<br />

masterpiece. Citizen Cane may be a great movie<br />

but it would've been that anyway even if it had<br />

been photographed by another DP - it just has too<br />

many things going for it to be held back by ""bad""<br />

photography. But this is something we will never<br />

know. However, I base my statement on some<br />

beautifully shot remakes of classic films which<br />

sunk like a ton of bricks! So why didn't the good<br />

photography buoy them up? The majority of<br />

Hitchcock and Ford films are atrociously lit. But<br />

who complains about the bad lighting? Yet not a<br />

few of them are considered ""masterpieces"" of<br />

American cinema. I haven't seen the remake of<br />

Psycho but 10-1 it is beautifully lit but will sink<br />

Page 659


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

into oblivion while Hitchcock's version will still be<br />

playing in 50 years time.<br />

While the cinema is a visual medium primarily and<br />

an audio medium secondly it's as well to remember<br />

that it is a cerebral experience above all -<br />

unless, of course, you're on a date! :-)<br />

Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting<br />

Cameraman<br />

Page 660


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Neons<br />

question: when shooting with neon lights in the<br />

frame, what problems can I expect. I'd like to ramp<br />

from 96 fps down to 24 fps. will there be any<br />

flicker problems. are there windows as with HMI.<br />

I've heard about electronic ballast's that square up<br />

the wave so that the discharge is incredibly fast,<br />

eliminating any flicker. any help would be greatly<br />

appreciated. thanks.<br />

Adam Gilmore<br />

I shoot in Las Vegas a lot...an awfully lot. The only<br />

problem I've had with neon is the brightness. I'll<br />

either put it on a neon type dimmer (they do exist)<br />

or put some net over the stuff. But mostly I just let<br />

it kind of blow-out. As far as flicker, I've never had<br />

a problem.<br />

Chet Simmons<br />

Page 661


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I am not an expert, but I think the answer is you<br />

should be safe, at any speed.<br />

I worked on a film that did a day in a neon shop.<br />

(Hot as Hell)<br />

The Neon blower (which is a fascinating process)<br />

said that Neon runs off of Milli Amps, and<br />

THOUSANDS of cycles per second. Yes it certainly<br />

does herz to get a shock from those ballast’s.<br />

I could be wrong, but that is what I remember him<br />

saying. Good luck<br />

Steven<br />

Yup, most neon lamps have RF excitation... there is<br />

still a 60 Hz flicker component, but it's not half as<br />

bad as with fluorescents. I have shot neons and<br />

occasionally seen visible flicker, but no more than<br />

you would see with the naked eye.<br />

However, the induced noise will drive your sound<br />

guy up the wall.<br />

Page 662


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Scott Dorsey<br />

Isn't that visible Flicker, caused more by the failure<br />

of the Bulb, similar to what happens, when a<br />

fluorescent light ages and dies. That funny kind of<br />

liquid running of bands.<br />

On that shoot, in the Neon Shop (Marcus Hahn was<br />

the D.P. I was an electric)<br />

I remember them shooting with a Plate shot with<br />

an Arri IIc, and having to relight the set with<br />

tungsten because it wasn't crystal. There didn't<br />

seem to be any concern about flicker, from the<br />

Neon bulb.<br />

Once again. This is all from Recollection from like<br />

three years or so ago.<br />

Steven<br />

Page 663


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've seen very bad (as in reshoot) flicker when<br />

shooting high speed (200-300 fps) with neon.<br />

Mako Koiwai<br />

Notes about shooting neon.<br />

It is very bright. If you are shooting neon in<br />

daylight, you can still read the tubes. If you are<br />

shooting at night, the tubes can overexpose so<br />

much that they will be indistinguishable "blobs" of<br />

light. I use dimmers to slow the tubes down, but<br />

you can only do that to a point before they tube<br />

goes out, and that point is typically still to bright. I<br />

either put net, or ND filter over them to bring them<br />

down more. Sometimes putting brown or black<br />

"Streaks and Tips" water soluble hair coloring spray<br />

on the tube will be an emergency solution.<br />

If you are using common neon step-up<br />

transformers from the neon sign shop, they tube<br />

does flicker at twice the AC line frequency, just like<br />

regular florescent lamps or HMI lamps running off<br />

magnetic ballast’s. You have to use the "HMI legal<br />

speeds" to stay out of trouble. And I mean<br />

Page 664


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

*reshoot* trouble. Also in-shot camera frame rate<br />

changes are big trouble too. I have heard that there<br />

are high frequency power supplies for neon tubes,<br />

but I have never seen one.<br />

Another problem to watch out for if you are having<br />

neon signs made for a shoot:<br />

If the tubes are mounted on a sign that has a solid<br />

background, make sure the neon sign maker paints<br />

the back side of the tube, that faces the<br />

background of the sign, opaque black. This is<br />

necessary because the neon, that close to the sign<br />

backing that it is mounted on will overlight that<br />

area, even if the tubes are dimmed, rendering a<br />

blob of light rather than a defined tube shape. I got<br />

burnt by this when we were in a rush for a sign, the<br />

neon maker wanted to paint the back of the tubes<br />

as usual, and my buddy the Art Director said "Naw,<br />

don't bother with that, we don't need it" .....One<br />

reshoot day later, I discovered how wrong he was.<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

Page 665


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Night Interiors<br />

I'm about to start a project that has a significant<br />

element of<br />

Night-Interior with no motivated sources.<br />

Meaning, curtains drawn, no candles and no power.<br />

Isolated location.<br />

The cast do use some candles and a flashlight now<br />

and then but NOT ALWAYS. I have a pretty good<br />

idea of what I want to do but I'd like to gather as<br />

much reference m aterial as possible.<br />

"Death and the Maiden" comes to mind but I really<br />

didn't like the way that looked: way too lit. There<br />

must be some better references out there...<br />

Thanks,<br />

D.P.<br />

Well, it's OK to be near pitch black for short<br />

sequences if a flashlight is going to be turned on<br />

Page 666


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

(I'm thinking of the opening of "Radio Days") - but<br />

for extended scenes in the dark, you have to make<br />

up SOME source, even if it's indirect ambient night<br />

skylight. You assume that the characters' eyes<br />

have adjusted to some sort of dim light, and you<br />

expose or print it down to what feels dark but still<br />

hold enough detail.<br />

On home video, however, dim photography does<br />

not play well because of the ambient room light<br />

that most people view their TV sets in. I didn't see<br />

"Death and the Maiden" in the theater, but I'm sure<br />

that the transfer was brighter looking than the<br />

print for easier viewing on TV (unfortunately). The<br />

Criterion laserdisc of "Seven" (transfer supervised<br />

by the director) was dark enough for many<br />

reviewers to suggest that it should be viewed only<br />

in a darkened room.<br />

"Seven" and "Silence of the Lambs" have many<br />

good, dark scenes. Philippe Rousselot is a real<br />

master of the dim, soft ambient night look which is<br />

great when printed or transferred dark enough, but<br />

looks too flat and lit if shown too bright. Look at<br />

"Interview with a Vampire" (the last scene where<br />

Louis finds Lestat in the abandoned mansion) or<br />

Page 667


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

parts of "Mary Reilly". "Lost Highway" takes<br />

underexposure to extremes but some of the<br />

milkiness is effectively creepy - "Blue Velvet" has a<br />

similar vibe in spots. "The Game" has some good<br />

scenes where it's pretty dark.<br />

Gordon Willis and Bruce Surtees both did a lot of<br />

really dark stuff in various scenes in their movies. I<br />

remember Willis even complaining about Surtees'<br />

work in "Escape from Alcatraz" saying that the film<br />

might as well have run black leader in some<br />

scenes.<br />

I personally like the stylized night work of old b&w<br />

movies, like in "The Innocents', "Night of the<br />

Hunter", "Jane Eyre", or the castle scenes in the<br />

original "Dracula"...<br />

David Mullen<br />

Good God... Be careful here. Talk to your<br />

production designer. I just trapped myself into this<br />

situation a little while back and I cringe at the<br />

Page 668


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

results. Make sure that your walls are not white!!!<br />

If you're having to work with "no-light" white walls<br />

will KILL you. It's best to create some sort of edge<br />

light as separation on your actors -- but if you<br />

have dark walls 90% of your work is done and you<br />

can get away with murder. Keep your front fill soft<br />

and at least two or three stops down. Don't be<br />

afraid to let your actors drop into pools of<br />

nothingness (as long as the narrative permits it) for<br />

a moment or two to help sell the idea - but be<br />

careful of the difference between your lit areas and<br />

your dark areas. I can highly recommend Kino's as<br />

backlights - an idea that I thought was crazy until<br />

my gaffer sold me on it - and as was mentioned<br />

earlier they're easy to hide. If you keep your walls<br />

dark and fill with very soft, underexposed, white<br />

light and then edge just a bit at key or less you can<br />

easily sell the idea of "no light."<br />

Jay Holben<br />

"Jackie Brown" had some of the most amazing<br />

night-for-night photography I've seen in a long<br />

Page 669


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

time. When it was "dark" it was really dark, but<br />

they devised clever ways that you could still see<br />

what was going on. Samuel Jackson in a car on a<br />

street at night, his face looking almost completely<br />

without detail, but you could still see his eyes! And<br />

then of course that scene where he and Pam Grier<br />

keep turning that light on and off in her living<br />

room. Wow.<br />

Both interiors and exteriors. Beautiful stuff. Check<br />

it out in a theatre, if you can, if you haven't seen it<br />

yet.<br />

Phil<br />

Maybe Tarkovsky's "The Sacrifice" (Sven Nykvist).<br />

Thoughts: I have found that I don't feel nearly as<br />

much need for literal motivation in Black and White<br />

as I do in color. I've thought about this but haven't<br />

been able to articulate exactly why this should be<br />

the case.<br />

Page 670


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I'll note FWIW that in "The Sacrifice" the night<br />

scenes are very close to monochromatic, (and in<br />

fact Tarkovsky often mixed B&W and Color in in<br />

his films.)<br />

My latest film was about 90% night scenes, half of<br />

them dark interiors. A major reference for me was<br />

a nativity by Geertgen tot sant jins - 15th C. It's in<br />

the National Gallery, London. (Hope the sp. is<br />

correct).<br />

Unfortunately I only know it from reproductions. It<br />

is one of the first "night for night" paintings in the<br />

Northern Renaissance.<br />

It depicts the Christ-child in the straw bed, in the<br />

manger, with a view out an open window in the<br />

rear with shepherds or Magi visible outside. The<br />

directional motivation for the interior is in fact the<br />

Christ-child i.e. that is the source. For the dark<br />

landscape and shepherds (or Magi I forget) the<br />

apparent source is a very small angel, that looks<br />

almost like translucent glass in the reproductions.<br />

So this angel is the source of the exterior light.<br />

Now I'm not getting religious on you but I'll point<br />

out that this is a wonderful example of motivated<br />

lighting that is not 'realistic' in any physical terms<br />

(though it may have been to Geertgen) but is<br />

Page 671


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

nonetheless wholly organic in terms of the subject.<br />

(Actually I'd call it Neoplatonic but I'll stop here..)<br />

I'd also look at LaTour and Rembrandt.<br />

-Sam Wells<br />

If you're looking for low-light situations or single<br />

source situations - also take a good look at<br />

Caravaggio's works like The Denial of Saint Peter -<br />

in which the soldier's face is completely in shadow,<br />

but his silhouette is separated by the light on the<br />

woman's face. Both Caravaggio and Rembrandt<br />

usually utilized the appearance of a single source,<br />

although Rembrandt's was usually softer then<br />

Caravaggio's. Like the Nativity that Sam<br />

mentioned, Rembrandt had The Adoration of the<br />

Shepherds in which the Christ-child is the source<br />

(although there is a gas lantern it pales in<br />

comparison to the luminance from the hay). But in<br />

both artist's work you never find a principal subject<br />

that is without detail. The dark areas of<br />

Caravaggio and Rembrandt's work are often the<br />

Page 672


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

background players. Andrew Wyeth is another<br />

great one to look at for naturalistic low-lighting<br />

situations like his Cider and Pork or The Stanchions<br />

or Toll Rope - interestingly enough all of the three<br />

examples have no people in them - just mass<br />

"underexposure" just to the point that detail is still<br />

possible. I find "lighting for darkness" the best<br />

solution in most cases, but if you have an<br />

inexperienced director it can be a hassle. In this<br />

situation, you'd pay most attention to your ratios of<br />

light and dark, but keep the levels up a bit - then<br />

print down. This helps assure that the dark areas<br />

are not milky - but good solid blacks - because<br />

there is information on the negative in those areas,<br />

it's just printed down to the point of loss of detail.<br />

It sometimes seems that with today's stocks -<br />

especially the Vision stocks - that good solid<br />

blacks are becoming more and more of a<br />

challenge. With keylight exposure possible from<br />

8fc (ISO500 @ f1.9) and most of the vision stocks<br />

being able to read five stops easily down - you're<br />

looking at detail information at 1/4fc! The detail in<br />

the low shadows at this level tends to milk things<br />

up -- especially if you don't have a hot source in<br />

shot to increase the apparent level of blacks. So if<br />

you jump up a bit to a key level of say 40fc (f4 @<br />

Page 673


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

500ISO) you've got a little more room at the base<br />

level to print things down into black. Of course in<br />

low-budget situations this kind of control is only<br />

possible in tighter shots.<br />

Best of luck.<br />

Jay Holben<br />

This is just a note to be classified under<br />

interesting, but useless trivia. Rembrandt would<br />

have no idea what all the ruckus is about<br />

"Rembrandt lighting".<br />

Most art historians hold that Rembrandt never<br />

intended his art to look at all dark. It is the<br />

oxidation of the paints he used that created this<br />

"Rembrandt look".<br />

Rembrandt would be *horrified* at the destruction<br />

of his art caused by the dramatic darkening of the<br />

pigments he used.<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

Page 674


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've got to question you here - as far as I've read -<br />

the differences in oxidized or aged oils and<br />

refurbished paintings is not so much the light/dark<br />

aspect as the wide color pallet that he used. Most<br />

people have associated reds/oranges/yellow with<br />

Rembrandt, but it would seem that he used many<br />

more vivid colors that had aged to yellows. I'd<br />

have to say, again only from my reading, that he<br />

worked intentionally dark - especially in works like<br />

The Rich Man from the Parable and The Rising of<br />

Lazarus - there are obviously areas of deep dark<br />

and only highlights. This idea may be true for<br />

more of his portraiture work - as in self portraits<br />

and portraits of Sasha - but not in his "narrative"<br />

works.<br />

Jay Holben<br />

Page 675


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Those light pigments must have been REALLY<br />

bright.<br />

Art Adams<br />

I realize that my post was more inspired from an<br />

vague memory of a Discovery Channel program or<br />

two and not the result of my study of art.<br />

I defer to your accounting as a more thorough an<br />

understanding than my own.<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

Boy, it's amazing how differently we can see things.<br />

I thought 'Jackie Brown' looked pretty lousy.<br />

There's a night scene early on where Sam Jackson<br />

goes to pick up his doomed minion at a courtyard-<br />

type motel. It becomes a long steadicam shot<br />

ending with Jackson and the other guy in a 50/50<br />

Page 676


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

in the 'proscenium' at the end of a passageway. In<br />

the background, presumably a street, it is solid<br />

black, actually a little milky. Jackson has no light<br />

on him and I don't think the other guy does either.<br />

So you have the arch, which is light in color AND<br />

has light on it, and a black area under it where you<br />

can barely make out either actor. Maybe they<br />

missed their marks. Maybe it was the last setup of<br />

the night and Tarantino insisted on rolling before<br />

the DP was ready. Who knows? But I don't think it<br />

does the story or the performances any good.<br />

And that scene with the lamp going on and off<br />

seemed very very gimmicky to me.<br />

I will be the first to admit that 'Jackie' is a much<br />

bigger movie than anything I am getting asked to<br />

shoot. And doubtless Tarantino is happy with the<br />

look, to whatever extent he cares.<br />

Maybe the thing is that Tarantino is DP-proof and<br />

*no one* is going to do<br />

their best work with him.<br />

Alan 'Nothing if not critical'* Thatcher<br />

Page 677


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I think Cliff was referring to the famous case of<br />

"The Night Watch", which after cleaning, turned out<br />

not to be a night scene at all. The varnishes used<br />

by Rembrandt both caused overall darkening &<br />

yellowing over time, although Rembrandt was not a<br />

colorist in the manner of, let's say, the Venetian<br />

school in Italy. He DID use dark backgrounds -<br />

and black was a popular clothing color of the day.<br />

His narrative paintings tended to be about biblical<br />

stories, which were not popular in his day; the<br />

middle-class Dutch population preferred<br />

landscapes & still life’s and the wealthy preferred<br />

portraits of themselves. Although Rembrandt is<br />

associated with soft, natural lighting, if you study<br />

his narrative paintings, you'll find that the lighting<br />

is also quite theatrical with a dramatic spotlight<br />

effect on Christ (motivated sometimes) with the<br />

rest of the frame falling into darkness.<br />

I think the difference between Rembrandt and<br />

Caravaggio was more than the fact that Caravaggio<br />

used harder "key" lights and higher contrast<br />

(necessary because his works hung in dark<br />

Page 678


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

churches usually high above the alter) but also that<br />

Rembrandt used more glazing to add depth to his<br />

dark areas, allowing them to recede into darkness<br />

gradually. Of course, there are many more<br />

differences between the two men and their work...<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 679


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Night Shooting<br />

Being a graduate film student, I have enjoyed this<br />

list to no end. With so much to learn in this field,<br />

every outlet of information I can find is a major<br />

plus. I've been waiting for an opportunity to post a<br />

question and take advantage of an awful lot of<br />

expertise. So, here goes...<br />

I am about to shoot a graduate thesis film here at<br />

FSU and I'm confronted with a standard situation<br />

but one that I have never shot in. We will be<br />

shooting some extensive night exteriors in a large<br />

setting- an old-style carnival wintercamp with<br />

about 12 to 15 motor homes placed in the middle<br />

of a cow field.<br />

At my disposal I have 4-6 1.2k HMI's and a bevy of<br />

tungsten lights. We'll be shooting Kodak's Vision<br />

500T on 16mm. I know this is as somewhat<br />

nebulous question, but is there anyone who might<br />

be able to offer advice on what steps I could take<br />

or guidelines to follow to light this scene? I know<br />

there are a million answers to this, I'm just looking<br />

for a little sage<br />

advice.<br />

Page 680


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Andrew Millians<br />

Most common mistake with inexperienced "night<br />

lighters" (excuse my half-assed pun) is overlighting<br />

the scene. Think about your motivation at night<br />

and what night looks like to you. If it is a motor<br />

home park in an open field you probably don't<br />

want to light it up like a football field. Allow things<br />

to fall of 1stop, 2 stops, 3 stops, blackness, etc. To<br />

me, a night scene needs good blacks as much as it<br />

needs highlight (practical) areas. My 2 cents<br />

JDBelinski<br />

Assuming the field is quite large and the shot is<br />

somewhat enormous given you have so many<br />

motor homes, you could try ...<br />

1) dusk shots (to supplement your lights) or some<br />

sort of Day for Night to do the cover shots then use<br />

Page 681


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

your lighting arsenal to supplement the MS's and<br />

CU's.<br />

2) Build a big fire in the middle of the compound<br />

and let the tungsten’s support the fire (similar<br />

color) and allow the HMI's to give you the overall<br />

bluish effect of a moonlight night.<br />

3) Push the V500 one stop to give you some<br />

additional latitude. This will of course increase the<br />

grain significantly - but given the piece could be<br />

beneficial.<br />

About 3 years ago one of FSU's graduates did a<br />

night shot in a wide open space using the same<br />

equipment you are now faced with. I saw the<br />

impressive film which was called, Demetrious the<br />

WerClown, I think. Why don't you contact him to<br />

get a pointer or two.<br />

Jim.R.Allen.III<br />

Page 682


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Without knowing what the camera angles are and if<br />

there are any dolly moves (in other words, what's<br />

the biggest area you have to light at one time), it IS<br />

a nebulous question. Plus, how many areas will you<br />

have to light during one night? Do you have a<br />

generator? How big is your electrical crew? How<br />

many pages & set-ups are you trying to<br />

accomplish? And the most important thing is -<br />

what do YOU want it to look like?<br />

My suggestion: go to town on the practicals - just<br />

as Cameron added twice as many practicals to the<br />

deck of the Titanic, you should have as many<br />

porchlights and light coming from windows as<br />

possible (unless everyone is supposed to be<br />

asleep.) The practicals will do a lot of the lighting<br />

of the trailers, leaving you to concentrate on<br />

lighting the actors.<br />

As a film student, I used to light night exteriors<br />

with 1200 watt HMI pars on high roller stands (tied<br />

down for safety) or on top of big trucks or on<br />

rooftops. If you don't want blue light, you might<br />

consider using PAR 64 tungsten’s - the ones with<br />

narrow spot bulbs throw out a lot of light at a good<br />

distance. And they're only a 1K. Besides high roller<br />

Page 683


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

stands, you might consider getting some parallels.<br />

Also, Kinoflos are great for hiding a soft source<br />

behind something - plus they use very little power.<br />

In general (I'm REALLY oversimplifying) you'll want<br />

to work in backlight or crosslight with a minimal<br />

amount of fill when needed to maintain a sense of<br />

darkness and a night atmosphere. Don't try to light<br />

everything up - try to balance areas of darkness<br />

with lit areas. When you are really stuck, remember<br />

Nestor Almendros' advice - when a scene is very<br />

underexposed, one hot area of overexposure (like<br />

a bright lantern) will seem to balance the lighting<br />

to your eye, making the dark areas seem less<br />

murky. In the '70's, William Fraker used to put a<br />

Tweenie in the distance during a night scene just<br />

pointing at the camera - the little hot spot helped<br />

hide the underexposure.<br />

David Mullen<br />

"setting- an old-style carnival wintercamp with<br />

about 12 to 15 motor homes placed in the middle<br />

of a cow field."<br />

Page 684


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Since it is a winter camp can snow be on the<br />

ground? If you can have snow then you may have<br />

too many HMI's for the scene. Snow will act like a<br />

huge bounce card and could adequately light your<br />

scene for you. I'll bet your local ice house could<br />

help you find someone who could blow in snow -<br />

maybe expensive - but maybe worth looking into.<br />

Jim.R.Allen.III<br />

I think all the responses were really great<br />

suggestions although I'm not sure I'd push one<br />

stop. Too much grain.<br />

But I believe that creating some depth at night<br />

when possible is very helpful. Light up some trees<br />

far in the background. Lots of practicals. I'd be<br />

more inclined to use your HMI for background<br />

lighting and keep the tungsten for the trailers and<br />

foreground elements. Kind of the opposite of Jim's<br />

idea. - Sorry Jim :>) - But everyone's idea was<br />

great and all just as valid as the others. Best of luck<br />

Page 685


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

with it.<br />

Regards,<br />

Jim S.<br />

It's not clear how large an area you plan on<br />

shooting, but one of the ways to cover a relatively<br />

large area is to scatter the area with practicals and<br />

small sources throughout the scene to give it<br />

dimension. Don't be afraid to let parts of the scene<br />

go black, use shadows and silhouettes.<br />

I'm not a big proponent of drowning an area with<br />

heavy blue backlight, it rarely looks good. A fire, or<br />

multiple small fires scattered throughout can help,<br />

as well as lanterns, maybe some strings of small<br />

lights to help guide the audience's eyes where you<br />

want it to. If you can use small units (1ks and 2ks)<br />

to light some bushes, trees, fence whatever in the<br />

far distance to give the scene some depth, by all<br />

means do so, and keep 'em at least 1 stop under so<br />

it doesn't call attention and overwh elms whatever<br />

you're covering.<br />

Page 686


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

You could consider shooting day for night, but I<br />

feel that when there are a lot of practicals involved<br />

(buildings, streetlights, etc...) it usually is hard to<br />

pull off well. If you do decide to go day for night,<br />

check the position of the sun at the times you'll be<br />

shooting. Day for night works best when the sun is<br />

used as a backlight and/or side light.<br />

Talk to the production designer/art director if<br />

there is one and your gaffer to discuss other ideas<br />

for practicals and light sources. Above all, be<br />

creative, prepared and enjoy yourself. Good luck.<br />

Kino's are great...but expensive. It is AMAZING<br />

what you can do with off-the shelf "light-sticks"<br />

those under the kitchen counter fluorescent<br />

fixtures, as well as the two bulb electronic ballast<br />

shop light fixtures. You can buy Optima 32<br />

(tungsten balance) bulbs or Chroma 50 or Vita light<br />

(daylight balance) or you can use cool-white or any<br />

of a range of better CRI (color rendering index)<br />

bulbs now on the market. You can have fun putting<br />

little glows under or behind things<br />

Page 687


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

if, and only if they add to the shot (which is trying<br />

to help tell a story) or in trailer windows.<br />

I've lit lots of things from hardware store shopping<br />

runs We once lit an entire 747 (all three cabins)<br />

with rock & roll PARS through paper on the<br />

windows and shop lights taped and wired to the<br />

center console overhead baggage compartments.<br />

Millions saw the shots every year for about 5<br />

years...it was an IMAX film on flight for the<br />

Smithsonian...Total lighting package cost was a<br />

fraction of a typical<br />

commercial.<br />

Good luck!<br />

Mark<br />

Remember, too, that effective "day-for-night"<br />

illusion also means replicating the "night" shooting<br />

conditions, so have your ND 9 and ND 1.2 filters<br />

ready, so you can shoot at or near wide open on<br />

the stop. Hate those deep-focus "night" shots!<br />

(which is why MY preference is to put the HMI units<br />

inside the trailers... so the windows can still blow<br />

Page 688


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

out with an ND 9 on the lens!)<br />

Jim Furrer<br />

Page 689


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Making a Rainbow<br />

How would I create a rainbow in my shot? In my<br />

bright daytime scene under a veranda during a<br />

downpour I would love to make a natural rainbow.<br />

My trusty Dictionary says a rainbow is "an arc of all<br />

seven spectral colors appearing in the sky<br />

opposite the sun as a result of the refractive<br />

dispersion of sunlight in drops of rain or mist."<br />

Does that mean if I blast a beam of light from over<br />

the camera can I place a rainbow where I want it?<br />

Controlling the size, intensity and location of the<br />

light on the rain and mist should make it possible<br />

to control the rainbow, right?<br />

I could have sworn I saw it done on the X-Files...<br />

Kevin M. Andersen<br />

Finally, a question on cinematography, I was<br />

getting tired of this my video is better than you<br />

Page 690


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

video 'pissing contest'. It seemed out of place on a<br />

cinematography site.<br />

To answer your question. I had the opportunity<br />

or should I say the job, of recreating a rainbow for<br />

a shot in the early morning. I used the sun to do<br />

this on an early morning in Colorado. August is<br />

summer in Colorado, and I noticed that my<br />

sprinkler would give a rainbow if you stood just<br />

right as the sun came up over the east. I tried to<br />

recreate this effect and it was very, very difficult.<br />

We were in college, so we were willing to try<br />

anything, unlike our professional work, which must<br />

be now what we 'know' to work.<br />

I tried lights, I tried all sorts of hoses and<br />

sprinklers but we ended up going to the source.<br />

The sun was the light source coming over the east,<br />

the sprinkler head is a simple type, metal cap with<br />

a slit on top of it, and the time is as soon as the<br />

Sun comes up. The sun was moving, so we had to<br />

re-adjust the sprinker often.<br />

Which begs the question. What time do you<br />

intend to shoot this? What is your light source?,<br />

how long do you intend to shoot for?<br />

Page 691


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

As for the photography, don't worry too much<br />

about it. If you can see it, you can film it.<br />

Hope this helps.<br />

Jesus M. Medina<br />

How about a glass shot? I remember a shoot I<br />

worked on a few years ago when the m ain unit did<br />

just that. It was of an aeroplane flying into the<br />

rainbow. I seem to remember it worked quite well.<br />

Which these days opens up the whole idea of doing<br />

it in post.<br />

Brian Rose<br />

How about this for a Bizarre idea.<br />

FILTERS.<br />

Page 692


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I think Cokin makes a Really Cheesey ( my<br />

apologies to Cokin for Cheesifying them) Rainbow<br />

filter, that You could Maybe Play with. Or I think<br />

Tiffen made a Rainbow Filter that would Colorize<br />

Strong flares. Mine came out of the Dollar box and<br />

has the weirdest separation that snakes through<br />

the filter. Or perhaps you can call up Edmund<br />

Scientific and see about some Diffraction Grating.<br />

Steven ( stop me now before I suggest a light<br />

coating of Oil and water on a Clear filter) Gladstone<br />

I was going to make this suggestion as well (and I<br />

fully agree on the cheese factor). It was my<br />

understanding that you needed the rainbow to<br />

"appear" in shot. A simple approach would be a<br />

wide lockoff with and without filter and dissolve<br />

the two in post. I wonder if something more<br />

believable couldn't be done with a 50% percent<br />

mirror and some type of illuminated "rainbow"<br />

reflection (perhaps projected or a transparency).<br />

Page 693


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

You could then make it "appear" by turning on your<br />

light source or removing a solid that was blocking<br />

the reflection. Sacha Vierny uses a similar gag in<br />

the Kodak Series "Shooting for Fantasy" to make a<br />

magical beam of light appear in shot.<br />

If staunch realism is your desired goal I'd sooner<br />

reach for the plaid filter than a rainbow!<br />

Regards,<br />

Jonathan Belinski<br />

I remember in an old A.C. article about the<br />

Lightflex, inventor Gerry Turpin suggested using a<br />

rainbow pattern created with gels in the Lightflex<br />

filter holder, which would then reflect it over the<br />

image somewhat out-of-focus.<br />

Wouldn't work with the new VariCon but could be<br />

done with a simple 45 degree piece of glass in<br />

front of the lens...<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 694


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Yes, thanks to all who suggested ways to cheat<br />

rather than recreate. The narrative of my story<br />

would be enhanced by the subtle insertion of a<br />

small rainbow pattern which is revealed when a<br />

character moves in a two shot. I'm talking subtle,<br />

not 'fantasy' or anything that will jump off the<br />

screen. It is an additional visual element I want to<br />

add at this moment and must be done in camera<br />

without any post tricks. It has to be seen in depth,<br />

in the background rain and mist so filters or<br />

projection of some kind would not be useful.<br />

In order to recreate a rainbow one must<br />

understand what conditions are necessary to<br />

create one. I have heard many people tell me they<br />

see them by accident. Are the physics of this just<br />

so precise, the requirements so tight, or the<br />

conditions so extreme that this is not possible?<br />

Lets try to refract some light in an artful manner!<br />

Page 695


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Kevin "there will be gold at the end of the rainbow<br />

if I can do this"<br />

Andersen<br />

<br />

From an airplane looking down to the ground I'm<br />

told a rainbow will be a circle and not an ARC. I<br />

think the idea presented about using a piece of<br />

glass at a 45 degree angle would work best. The<br />

further away from the Glass the rainbow painting (<br />

On a Black background) is the deeper it will seem<br />

in the background.<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Page 696


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

You know I carried that Cokin rainbow filter with<br />

me for years :-)<br />

Never used it.<br />

After at least ten years I took it out of my filter kit.<br />

The next job I needed it.<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

<br />

OK we know you need a light source and water<br />

vapour for refraction. Jesus (Medina) said he had<br />

trouble recreating this with anything but the sun;<br />

but even if you can find a light source strong<br />

enough, will it give you a full colour spectrum? i.e.:<br />

if using Tungsten/HMI/Arc etc - will you get the<br />

same spectrum?(refraction of white light and all<br />

that...)<br />

Page 697


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Sorry Kevin, I know this isn't helping you much -<br />

I'd try it out with the abundant sunlight you have in<br />

LA and a hose or sprinkler and suggest talking to a<br />

SFX house about using rainpoles to make the mist<br />

since this will be easier to switch on and off than<br />

the sun! You'll have a relatively short window of<br />

sunlight position but think yourself lucky that<br />

you're not trying this in London!<br />

Whilst I agree that you can photograph what you<br />

can see, we all know that the eye does not see the<br />

same as filmstocks - I have always had great<br />

difficulty making rainbows appear as strongly on<br />

film as they do to the naked eye. Even when they<br />

are strong enough to make a clearly visible double<br />

rainbow, the second one hardly registers on film<br />

against a dark cloud background - perhaps a<br />

lighter background is better but I don't believe so.<br />

Anyone know?<br />

What are your reasons for not wanting to do it in<br />

post? It seems that you would have the control you<br />

need far more easily this way... I've sometimes<br />

found that a contrived reality is more realistic. ;-)<br />

for Steven<br />

Page 698


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

From an airplane looking down to the ground I'm<br />

told a rainbow will be a >circle and not an ARC.<br />

Also available on mountain peaks above the cloud<br />

layer, this is known as the 'Brocken Spectre' - when<br />

you are between the sun and the clouds you get a<br />

shadow surrounded by a full circle rainbow, not<br />

much use in this case since clouds are hard to form<br />

at will. :-D<br />

Dan Blanchard<br />

>I have always had great difficulty making<br />

rainbows appear as<br />

>strongly on film as they do to the naked eye.<br />

Just speculating - but I wonder if the fact that<br />

rainbow light is monochromatic - a single<br />

wavelength at any part of the 'bow - (compared<br />

with most other objects which reflect a broadish<br />

spectrum of wavelengths) makes it less successful<br />

Page 699


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

at recording on colour film to match the way that<br />

we see it.<br />

>perhaps a lighter background is better but I don't<br />

>believe so. Anyone know?<br />

Speculating again, but I think a lighter background<br />

would desaturate the image and make the rainbow<br />

_less_ visible. What I have noticed in photos of<br />

rainbows, is that the sky appears much darker<br />

outside the 'bow than inside ( I think it's that way<br />

round). This is never so obvious to the naked eye,<br />

but it looks very convincing - possibly a necessary<br />

feature if you did the shot artificially.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

With all the minute details of water droplet size,<br />

and so on...might be better to go with the<br />

recommendations to do it in post.<br />

I think one only sees rainbows with the sun behind<br />

you. In other words: rainbows are frontally lit for<br />

Page 700


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

the viewer. (At least really strong, long-arced<br />

rainbows).<br />

In other words, don't even bother side/back<br />

lighting a man-made water-mist.<br />

I don't think you'd get much of a rainbow that way.<br />

Hope that suggestion wasn't too obvious.<br />

They also occur "easier" further away from the<br />

viewer. When we see rainbow diffraction close to<br />

us, we only see part of the arc. Seeing the full 180<br />

degree arching rainbow occurs further away (less<br />

parallax error between the viewer and the sun).<br />

Someone recently told me of a location scout,<br />

whereupon the director saw a rainbow and ordered<br />

the driver to head to the end of it. Problem was<br />

that the director was serious. The shoot could only<br />

go downhill from there. :-)<br />

Mark "hey, front-lighting isn't always bad"<br />

Doering-Powell<br />

Page 701


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

A rainbow painted in the proper perspective<br />

against black, mounted in a blacked out "tent" with<br />

it's own light source would work fine with a<br />

partially silvered mirror. Make sure the BG that<br />

would be behind the effect is predominately dark<br />

so it reads well. Watch out if you want to fade it up<br />

using a variac though, the color temperature<br />

change of the brightening bulb would make the<br />

spectrum fade up from mud. There are other ways<br />

of brighten the image, but I might suggest a clever<br />

black card art wipe.<br />

Eric Swenson<br />

Somewhere over the H20 droplet light diffraction<br />

Saw this for a second time a couple of weeks ago<br />

on a boat off the island of Maui. Hard to shape a<br />

shot of it as you are looking at the sun. A dot on<br />

glass would have been nice.<br />

Page 702


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Got a nice shot of my hand in the way though.<br />

Page 703


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Scanning film negs for stills<br />

I'm new to this list and hoping this subject has not<br />

been answered time and time again.<br />

I am about to shoot a commercial from which I<br />

would like to pull some frames out to use for print.<br />

I have done this with a previous project shot on<br />

7248. In that instance the lab cut frames from the<br />

negative ( after transfer of course ) and I had a<br />

local company scan the frames. The results as you<br />

will expect were marginal.<br />

The upcoming shoot will be in S35 on 5248 and<br />

5293, so we are much further ahead than last time<br />

format-wise.<br />

My questions then concerning how to best scan the<br />

negative to create this material for print.<br />

Any insight is appreciated<br />

Stephen<br />

Page 704


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Have you considered (far larger negative, posed,<br />

possible vertical composition, etc....) hiring a still<br />

photographer? ;


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

direct from negative that I have seen. Not well<br />

enough versed technically to tell you why.<br />

2) Since the negative stock is tungsten balanced,<br />

you will get accurate color rendition. Trying to take<br />

stills with uncorrected daylight balanced 35mm<br />

still film causes color shifts which are nearly<br />

impossible to correct without artifacts (color casts<br />

in shadows, etc.)<br />

The ad agency I used to work for had a "wall of<br />

fame" which consisted of frames printed from<br />

negative cut from outtakes of their 25mm shoots,<br />

blown up to 11x17. They looked pretty good,<br />

especially when originated on 5248.<br />

A few 16mm frame blowups are also posted on the<br />

wall of fame, and the results, as you already have<br />

experienced, are marginal.<br />

Hope this helps!<br />

Mark Schlicher<br />

Sunporch Entertainment<br />

Jerry,<br />

Page 706


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Were it possible , I would hire a still guy, shoot on<br />

medium format and have no worries . I am being<br />

asked to pursue this route, for budget, and time<br />

issues.<br />

The photos would be of small size in a magazine.<br />

Having said that, what is the best way to scan for<br />

this and what is the best results I can hope for.<br />

Stephen<br />

Hi Stephen,<br />

The best results I've ever seen were type "C" prints<br />

made directly from the original negative by an<br />

experienced printer. However, those people that<br />

were printing before automation and the "good<br />

enough" level work ethic are retiring and the new<br />

replacements are not as good. As in our industry,<br />

the still labs are now run by bean counters, not<br />

people that are in love with the captured image.<br />

Consider bringing along your own still camera and<br />

after you get what you want in the "cine" mode,<br />

knock off a few frames with your medium format<br />

or 35mm still camera. The only budget<br />

Page 707


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

consideration would be one roll of film and<br />

processing. Then have a print struck from each so<br />

you'll have a future reference.<br />

Good luck with it,<br />

Jerry Wolfe<br />

WOW!!! Jerry, that's quite a blanket statement. I<br />

personally know and frequently work with a fair<br />

number of VERY professional photo lab printers,<br />

here in Orlando, in Chicago and in New York as<br />

well.<br />

Moreover, none of the pro-labs I work with use<br />

automated printers for professional-level prints.<br />

Jeff... I'm not personally familiar with Imagers in<br />

Atlanta so I wouldn't venture an opinion regarding<br />

the quality of their work. I'll trust yours. But we<br />

recently did comparison scans for use on VHS box<br />

cover art for an independent project. The source<br />

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

difference between the output from ALL the various<br />

flatbed scanners we tried and the output from a<br />

drum scanner was huge! We've always had the<br />

Page 708


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

same experience from 35mm, 4x5 and 8x10<br />

images as well. Flatbed scanners seem to perform<br />

reasonably well with reflective art, but have never<br />

done nearly as well with transparent art... chromes<br />

or negatives. The resolution and contrast range<br />

just are not there.<br />

One final point. By having a 4x5 transparency<br />

struck directly fr om the original neg., you can<br />

always go back later and scan again at any size and<br />

resolution for any application you want. And rest<br />

assured that nothing will protect every bit of your<br />

image as well as a 4x5 chrome... except an 8x10<br />

transparency that is.<br />

Michael Siegel<br />

If you're willing to physically extract the individual<br />

frames, and it's for print (as in magazine or other<br />

press-type reproduction) you have two options that<br />

spring to mind. First, you could send the frames to<br />

a professional photo lab for duping to a 4x5<br />

positive chrome. This would protect the image and<br />

would add no perceptible grain. Then you could<br />

Page 709


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

use the resulting 4x5 image for hi-rez digital drum<br />

scanning at your convenience. Or as an alternative,<br />

simply have the extracted frames scanned directly<br />

on a high rez drum scanner from the get-go and<br />

make multiple copies of the file for future use.<br />

Professional photographers shooting print work for<br />

magazines and advertising rarely use anything but<br />

chrome transparency (slide/reversal) stock. As a<br />

result, high-end drum scanners are optimized for<br />

chrome.<br />

If it's for photographic printing (as in "Gee... that<br />

would look really cool on my wall") then have a pro<br />

photo lab strike a regular enlarged print directly<br />

from the negative.<br />

Michael Siegel<br />

If I'm not mistaken, the Spirit FX can output a high<br />

res. data file from color neg.<br />

Another option: find someone with a Nikon<br />

scanner. Photoshop tweak as necessary.<br />

Another option: mount the neg. in an appropriate<br />

2X2 slide mount, send 'em out to have a PhotoCD<br />

Page 710


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

made ... much cheaper than drum scans an<br />

virtually identical quality, especially if they're done<br />

by a quality house, like Imagers in Atlanta ... again,<br />

back to Photoshop ...<br />

Jeff Lynch<br />

Stephen,<br />

You might also try your stocks rolled into 35mm<br />

still canisters -- shot the same stop from the<br />

camera position. I do this all the time. (also, your<br />

second AC could do it with their camera or yours...<br />

pretty easy, doesn't require an additional person...)<br />

A lab here in LA develops the 35mm ECN-6.<br />

The scanning service I used to use is gone now -<br />

so I can't help you there,<br />

sorry...<br />

Jay Holben<br />

Page 711


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

How are you supplying the images? On disk or as<br />

trannies?<br />

If you supply to the magazine on disk you will need<br />

a four colour file.<br />

If you want to get a transparency made you will<br />

want a three colour file.<br />

The best result would be to clip frames from your<br />

original neg. and have them scanned.<br />

The best scan (but unfortunately the most<br />

expensive) is a professional drum scan. The drum<br />

scan will give you the most dynamic range of any<br />

device and will give you a four colour (CMYK)<br />

image. For many other reasons it will also just look<br />

better. The poorer the image to be scanned, the<br />

better the scan needs to be. Any other device (i.e.<br />

all the others mentioned) will give you a three<br />

colour (RGB) image. I strongly advise against doing<br />

the colour seps in Photoshop unless you know<br />

what you are doing.<br />

The scan from the neg. will be very unsuitable for<br />

printing (motion blur, dot gain etc..) However, all<br />

that is required is a little computer retouching,<br />

either in Photoshop or on a Scitex. In this day of<br />

cheap, poor quality, photo libraries any good<br />

retoucher has had endless experience of turning<br />

unsuitable images into perfectly good ones.<br />

Page 712


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mike Vlack<br />

Page 713


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Shooting 3 perf 35mm<br />

I realise that this has been discussed at length<br />

elsewhere and that I'm probably opening up a can<br />

of worms but......<br />

With TV production going 16:9 and most movies<br />

shot 1.85, why are we not shooting 3 perf?<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Viacom has been shooting a TV series called<br />

"Diagnosis Murder" (and others I think) for years<br />

with Panavision cameras modified with 3 perf pull<br />

downs.<br />

They are doing it for the stock & lab savings. One<br />

of the problems is that they are relegated to single<br />

(older) Rank because of the odd patch size.<br />

Don Hayashi<br />

Page 714


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've been wondering why Super35 features don't<br />

shoot in 3-perf. The extra cost of the optical blowup<br />

step would probably be paid for by the 25%<br />

savings in raw stock - plus you still have a<br />

negative/IP for home video transfer that is easier to<br />

pan & scan (if necessary) than anamorphic 2.35.<br />

David Mullen<br />

I shot some of the first American TV shows to try<br />

three-perf for Lorimar Television (now Warner<br />

Bros.) in the late 80's and early 90's. They tried it<br />

for a couple of seasons, but abandoned it finally<br />

because it caused post-production problems when<br />

they went to make PAL versions for Europe. Didn't<br />

seem to us like a big hurdle to overcome, but we<br />

were glad because the cameras were VERY noisy.<br />

Lowell Peterson<br />

Page 715


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

For television, it should be pointed out that nearly<br />

all multicamera film sitcoms that are on 35mm are<br />

being shot in 3 perf. That's quite a bit of television<br />

production. As mentioned before, Diagnosis<br />

Murder is also on the format, as is Nash Bridges (at<br />

least it was, don't know if it still is -- they keep<br />

changing cameramen and post facilities). Part of<br />

the resistance is probably the lack of complete<br />

support on the film finish end -- the TLC still<br />

doesn't support 3 perf keys (although it is about<br />

to), and Avid still doesn't support them. Without<br />

those two devices directly supporting 3 perf key<br />

counting, negative cutting is more complicated<br />

than it needs to be.<br />

But what really gets me is that television<br />

producers, many of whom have only been around<br />

since the fairly recent advent of electronic post<br />

production, are being told that their shooting<br />

format is not "just" 35mm, but SUPER 35mm --<br />

and, of course, as they will tell you, since it's SUPER<br />

35, it is, by definition, bigger and better than "plain<br />

old" 35. They wouldn't think of shooting on that<br />

"tiny" 3 perf "garbage", since it will sacrifice the<br />

quality! So if you want to know why 3 perf isn't<br />

being used, that's a significant reason. Stupid, but<br />

significant.<br />

Page 716


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

For my own purposes, I kind of like being on this<br />

nonsensical "shoot and protect" stuff, simply<br />

because it gives me quite a bit of added flexibility<br />

in building visual effects shots (resizing,<br />

repositioning, etc.), as well as in production, where<br />

I can often "use" this extra image area to my<br />

advantage.<br />

Mike Most, Encore Video, LA<br />

PS - I am, of course, assuming that most everyone<br />

here understands that the image area in a 1:77:1<br />

(16:9) extraction from a 4 perf frame is almost<br />

identical to that of a 3 perf frame shot with an<br />

optical center.<br />

Well, Super-35 usually doesn't pan and scan -- it<br />

extracts a flat image from the Super 35 neg. or IP.<br />

In the case of James Cameron or Apollo 13, it's all<br />

common topline, so you get extra image at the<br />

bottom of the frame -- probably the least<br />

objectionable way to go. Three-perf would get<br />

back to panning and scanning (slightly).<br />

Page 717


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

We could also go back to Techniscope! ;-)<br />

(Actually, I have a friend who is doing just that --<br />

he's shooting 2-perf for straight to letterbox films.<br />

He's converted an XR35 and an Arri IIc in the rare<br />

Panavision Handheld Blimp (David, remember<br />

these?).<br />

He's a little crazy, but enjoying it...<br />

Jeff "how many perf's d'ya want?" Kreines<br />

All our new generation cameras have been<br />

designed to be able to accept a 3 perf movement if<br />

so desired. Unfortunately, for various reasons<br />

already discussed here, we have not gotten any<br />

orders for 3 perf movements. All our cameras run 4<br />

perf right now. The only people I know of that use<br />

3 perf is episodic television shows in LA shooting<br />

with 3 perf Panavision camer as. A very specialized<br />

market.<br />

Cheers,<br />

Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative<br />

Arriflex Corporation; 1646 N. Oakley Ave, Suite #2,<br />

Chicago, IL 60647-5319, USA<br />

Page 718


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Having asked how much to convert my 435 to 3<br />

perf I'm now a major advocate of 4 perf.<br />

I don't know why I ever thought about 3 perf, daft<br />

idea really :-)<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

I agree with Geoff, at least as far as film<br />

commercial production for TV is concerned.<br />

For the past two years I have been shooting with<br />

my cameras set up with the lens centered on<br />

Super -35, and have groundglasses made with the<br />

standard sized SMPTE "TV Scanned" area (that is<br />

usually centered on the Academy aperture) moved<br />

over to be centered on the Super -35 centering.<br />

I frame and compose within that area, and try to<br />

protect as much of the silent aperture as I can.<br />

Now, I have a tremendous area around the image<br />

that can be utilized in post production for resizing,<br />

Page 719


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

re-centering , reducing, post production zooming,<br />

rotating, squeezing, etc.<br />

If we were to shoot 3 perf. All these things would<br />

not be possible.<br />

With so much of my image crafting being done in<br />

post production, I want to have as much flexibility<br />

as I can get in the original negative.<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

Sorry for the "me too" posting but I totally agree<br />

with you, when I suggested a while ago to some<br />

French DPs to shoot in S35 to gain in quality, most<br />

of them said they would prefer to have the extra<br />

image.<br />

Regards JC.<br />

Both Evertz and Aaton telecine Keycode readers<br />

support 3Perf.<br />

Page 720


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Since they both generate 3Perf-correct FLeX lists,<br />

TLC (telecine controller) or not, where is the<br />

problem Mike?<br />

Lightworks v.6 supports 3Perf and Avid<br />

FilmComposer version 7 will by March 98.<br />

We like 3Perf since it makes the Aaton35 a much<br />

quieter cat on the shoulder, it gives handheld 400<br />

foot mags a longer life, and reduces the number of<br />

short ends force dragged to the emporium...<br />

--jp<br />

PS: Those not familiar with 3Perf could have a look<br />

at<br />

<br />

A- Academy and Academy-4Perf cropped 1:1.78<br />

(273.5mm2)<br />

1.27mm off-centered; standard dia 27.2mm<br />

lenses.<br />

B- Super35-Goskino proposition (337.8mm2)<br />

centered; 'super35' dia 28.4mm lenses.<br />

C- Super35-3Perf 1:1.78 (316.5mm2)<br />

centered; standard dia 27.2mm lenses.<br />

'C' offers 16% bigger image area than 1:1.78<br />

cropped Academy,<br />

and an 8% wider angle of view from a standard<br />

lens.<br />

Page 721


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Further to the comments on 3 perf and Super 35,<br />

whether we like it or not, there is now almost an<br />

inevitability that the future both in TV and Film will<br />

be 16:9 in shape. Indeed at the recent International<br />

Standards meeting for <strong>Cinematography</strong>, a project<br />

group was established to study a Code of Practice<br />

which would consider only two origination formats<br />

for the future: 16:9 and 'scope. This came about<br />

from a suggestion by Walter Lassally BSC, and was<br />

endorsed by Imago at their Madrid meeting last<br />

month.<br />

The ASC web site also carries a report from their<br />

President Bob Primes ASC, who was present at<br />

Imago. It is well worth reading for a perspective of<br />

Europe as seen from the USA. See<br />

www.cinematographer.com<br />

The first question which comes to everyone's mind<br />

is "What about the exhibitors? They are wedded to<br />

1.85 masking." Are they? That's the general idea,<br />

but it is interpreted in such a vast number of ways,<br />

that one is lucky if the picture on the screen is not<br />

cropped in some way or other, since projectionists<br />

Page 722


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

are presented with a perplexing array of images on<br />

release prints. At least if everything was either 1.78<br />

or 2.39:1 the results would be consistent.<br />

Major exhibitors in London who were approached<br />

by Lassally, indicated that the small change in<br />

masking from 1.85 to 1.78 would not really be a<br />

big issue in most cases. If a common top line<br />

policy were also standardised, then presentation in<br />

the cinema could be much improved.<br />

As Walter said "The important thing to remember is<br />

that even if no alterations are made in the theatres<br />

at all, producers switching to 16x9 will be no<br />

worse off in respect to theatre presentation than<br />

they are at present."<br />

As others on CML have pointed out, most US TV<br />

productions are now shot Super 35 using 16:9,<br />

much of European TV is already 16:9. If<br />

distribution of motion pictures to theatres were<br />

ever to be carried out digitally then you can bet<br />

your bottom dollar that those projectors will be<br />

16:9.<br />

If you have any input on this issue which CML want<br />

to bring to the attention of the ISO Project Group,<br />

then I shall be happy to pass it along.<br />

John Croft<br />

Page 723


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

As others on CML have pointed out, most US TV<br />

productions are now shot Super 35 using 16:9...<<br />

Some comments on the above:<br />

Gate changes are not needed for 3 perf on the<br />

Quadra or the Spirit. The standard gate is used,<br />

and 3 perf operation is built into the software<br />

(single button toggle). Since there is no scan patch<br />

to be concerned with, they are both ideal machines<br />

for use with multiple formats.<br />

For those not working in Los Angeles, here are<br />

some current Hollywood television production<br />

"facts of life:"<br />

1. Although both Evertz and Aaton support 3 perf<br />

in terms of reading, interpreting, and displaying in<br />

windows, few LA facilities (I'm not saying none, just<br />

few) use either program to generate daily transfer<br />

logs. The TLC is the primary piece of equipment<br />

used for this purpose.<br />

2. Although Lightworks now supports 3 perf, Avid<br />

is by far the dominant editing system for television,<br />

Page 724


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and until 3 perf support is implemented directly in<br />

Film Composer, my previous comments stand.<br />

3. Although US TV productions are "shot in 16:9,"<br />

this is only a technicality. They are all framed for<br />

1.33, with lots of air on the sides. Everyone, from<br />

cameramen to directors, would prefer to have one<br />

frame, and I would venture to say that most would<br />

prefer that be the 1.77 frame, but American<br />

networks are ****very**** hesitant to broadcast<br />

letterbox. The early adopters of 16:9 in the US will<br />

likely see a lot of bad widescreen framing, with all<br />

the action in the center of the screen and lots of air<br />

filling the rest, particularly in multicamera<br />

productions. It might interest those here to know<br />

that Fox and Columbia<br />

(Sony) are actually post producing much of their<br />

programming in 16:9, then extracting 1.33 for<br />

current broadcast, both domestic and foreign (of<br />

course, they're not **paying** any more for any of<br />

this!). All of the 16:9 post production is "hidden"<br />

from the producers, as both the dailies and the<br />

final product are presented to them using the 1.33<br />

extraction. This has caused much consternation on<br />

the part of associate producers and post<br />

supervisors this season, both of whom now have to<br />

deal with creating 2 different products for the<br />

Page 725


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

studio, only one of which m eans anything to their<br />

producers.<br />

Mike Most, Encore Video, LA<br />

I remember about 10 years ago when 3 perf was<br />

catching on as the next big thing.<br />

From what I heard at the time, it died out for a<br />

variety of reasons.<br />

--Editing of the film was difficult because the lines<br />

between frames were VERY thin or non-existent<br />

--3 perf requires completely different camera<br />

movements, editing equipment, projectors, etc.,<br />

most of which were expensive and bothersome to<br />

implement. And then every rental house, lab, and<br />

post facility would have equipment with two<br />

different standards to deal with or have to switch<br />

formats back-and-forth<br />

--As mentioned here elsewhere, some people liked<br />

having extra room around the image for a margin<br />

of error<br />

--And the rumor was that when directors knew<br />

they were using 25% less film, they (consciously or<br />

Page 726


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

subconsciously) figured they could shoot 25% more<br />

-- extra takes,<br />

extra inserts, extra angles, etc. -- so they ended<br />

up shooting just as much film<br />

-- Joel Rome<br />

Otto Nemenz International<br />

Page 727


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Snot Tape (fixing nets to the back of<br />

lenses)<br />

What could be better then snot tape (3M transfer<br />

tape) ...<br />

I've been using it for 13 years and have never had a<br />

problem. It works in virtually every circumstance, it<br />

won't damage anything (the rental houses<br />

appreciate that), it's quick and easy to remove.<br />

(There are times where I need to remove the net for<br />

say a close up product shot. I can quickly pull off<br />

the net and then replace it in moments without<br />

having to work very carefully with glues.) I like the<br />

fact that it has some give to it. There are lenses<br />

where the rear element moves during focusing.<br />

With the snot tape everything is free to move<br />

along.<br />

Of course there are lenses that accept net holders<br />

and I have pre made up holders for those lenses.<br />

Also 40.5mm and 48mm rings with nets for any<br />

lens that accepts those rings.<br />

Mako Koiwai<br />

Page 728


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Another good way to do a quick net mounting job<br />

on the back of a video lens is to cut the outer edge<br />

off of a 35mm still, can top with a razor blade. This<br />

works with both the B3 Ikegami and B4 Sony<br />

mounts. Use that outer can top ring and push it<br />

over the lens flange. When pushing the lid ring<br />

over the lens it will stretch the net a little making a<br />

nice neat job. Just pop it off when finished and<br />

save it for the next time.<br />

Paul M. Zenk<br />

I learned about netting rear elements of video<br />

cameras with I-Rings from this list about two years<br />

ago. I-Rings will fit over the rear element of many<br />

video lenses in seconds. They come off as easily,<br />

and the same net can be reused if you're careful<br />

storing them. When I do a multi-camera video<br />

shoot, I can use pre-rigged I-Rings and net 5<br />

lenses in about 10 minutes. Try that with snot<br />

tape.<br />

Page 729


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Contact Jim Iacona at the I-Ring Company at:<br />

(415) 647-4845<br />

Tim Glass<br />

OK, Pardun my ignorance on this but what is an Iring?<br />

I know of O-rings, are they similar? I<br />

presume that this doesn't work on motion picture<br />

camera lenses but would love to hear different.<br />

Thanks.<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

I-Rings are two plastic interlocking rings that when<br />

"snapped together, will lock a net in place. The<br />

assembled ring can then be slid onto the rear<br />

element of most 2/3" chip Sony and Ikegami lenses<br />

with B4 mounts. I asked the manufacturer if they<br />

made them for cine lenses, but they don't. They<br />

only make I-Rings in one diameter, so they won't<br />

Page 730


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

work on most motion picture camera lenses since<br />

the rear element diameter varies so much.<br />

Problems with shutter/mirror clearance on some<br />

lenses, too.<br />

When I bought mine, they were about $20.00 each.<br />

Hope that helps,<br />

Tim Glass<br />

Page 731


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Safe Speeds for Ramps<br />

Anyone out there done any hi speed ramping with<br />

flicker free HMIs?<br />

I have a big night exterior to shoot which kinda<br />

needs HMIs, however I also have to ramp the<br />

camera up to 150fps on the 435ES.<br />

I hope I have a chance to shoot tests but maybe<br />

not.<br />

Everyone says it should be OK.<br />

I’m scared.......<br />

Cheers,<br />

Will Gibson<br />

Will,<br />

Yes, I've tried HMI & Kino ramps.<br />

No, you cannot do it! They will/do flicker.<br />

I tried 24fps ramped to 60fps [both HMI safe<br />

speeds] using a Moviecam Compact set at 180<br />

degree shutter. We shot the ramp both as a fast<br />

ramp [2 second total speed shift] and a slow ramp<br />

[8 second speed shift I believe] and yes, there was<br />

a very bad flicker. We used square-wave ballast’s<br />

Page 732


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

on the HMIs and standard 4' Kino bulbs. I even<br />

aimed the camera directly into the HMI fresnel and<br />

also shot another fixture into a bounce card [where<br />

flicker always seems to be more noticeable] and<br />

really saw the flicker more in the 'fall-off' of the<br />

bounce card.<br />

When the camera ramped through the 40fps mark<br />

[a safe HMI speed] I noticed a slight drop in the<br />

flicker but once it went past 40fps there certainly<br />

was an increase in the flicker.<br />

Seeing this flicker at these lower frame rates leads<br />

me to believe that at the higher speeds you require<br />

will lead to vast amounts of flicker.<br />

It's great that these cameras can now ramp their<br />

speeds, it's just too bad the technology is not there<br />

yet with the lighting units. But, you would be safe<br />

[of course] if you shot with daylight or tungsten.<br />

Shot your own tests, I would love for somebody to<br />

prove me wrong. But my 2,500' of 5279 really gave<br />

me a warning.<br />

Cheers,<br />

Jeff Barklage<br />

Page 733


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I've ramped on the 435ES with 4K flicker free pars<br />

with no problem at all.<br />

Double check with Arri if you're concerned.<br />

Regards,<br />

Jim<br />

If you're scared of flicker, and you're outside, try<br />

shooting with arc lights instead of HMI's.<br />

Phil<br />

If this involved the Moviecam's 'Moviespeed' or a<br />

similar iris control like the Preston Speed Aperture<br />

Computer I don't think it was a valid test.<br />

With the shutter locked at 180, you would go from<br />

a shutter speed of 1/48 sec. (safe) to 1/120 sec<br />

(also safe) but pass through a whole range of inbetween<br />

frame rates *and exposure times* which<br />

are not safe....just like if you spun the speed<br />

control at random. Naturally you get flicker.<br />

The Arri RCU or LCC in conjunction with the<br />

internal shutter control on the 535A and the 435ES<br />

Page 734


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

(but not the 'B' --have I got that right Marc?) would<br />

give you 24fps at a 45 degree shutter angle<br />

ramping/changing to 60fps with a 180 shutter,<br />

*maintaining 1/48 shutter speed the whole time*.<br />

The only question is whether the accuracy of the<br />

unit is sufficient to keep flicker out...it would have<br />

to be in the hundredths of a degree I think. A little<br />

slippage might only result in a minor exposure<br />

change, but a horrendous flicker.<br />

Whether the strobing effect of the 45 degree<br />

shutter at 24fps is acceptable is a whole other<br />

question.<br />

Best wishes,<br />

Alan 'close that window!' Thatcher<br />

That is correct. The 535A and 435ES have an<br />

electronic mirror shutter that can change its open<br />

angle on the fly, while the camera is running. This<br />

is useful for a variety of occasions, but mostly for<br />

speed/exposure ramps, where the exposure<br />

compensation is performed by the mirror shutter.<br />

Remember, the exposure time for each frame is a<br />

value derived from the fps AND the shutter angle.<br />

The 535A and 435ES can keep the exposure time<br />

Page 735


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

for each frame constant, by having the shutter<br />

counter the exposure change resulting from the<br />

speed change.<br />

If you start at 24 fps and 180 degree shutter, your<br />

exposure time per frame is 1/48th.<br />

While ramping to 12 fps, the mirror shutter would<br />

close down, and you end up at 12 fps and 90<br />

degrees. Note that the exposure time per frame is<br />

still 1/48th, and in fact has remained 1/48th for<br />

every single frame throughout the whole ramp.<br />

The LCC has a calculator built in that can show you<br />

not only the exposure time for each frame for a<br />

given ramp, but also tell you what your fps range is<br />

that can still be compensated for by the 11.2 to<br />

180 degree range of the shutter (4 stops). On the<br />

435ES, for instance, the extremes are about this:10<br />

fps to 150 fps, or 1 fps to 16 fps, and of course<br />

anything in between.<br />

Take a look at this when you have a chance, it is<br />

useful even if you don't use the LCC for anything<br />

else.<br />

More information on this topic can be found on the<br />

CSC web site, go to the "technical info" page<br />

http://www.cameraservice.com.<br />

Now on the topic of HMIs, consensus here at Arri is<br />

that THEORETICALLY you should be able to use the<br />

Page 736


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

535A or 435ES with a speed/shutter ramp and be<br />

OK if you use flicker free HMIs. BUT since there are<br />

so many variables that we have no control over, I<br />

must URGE you to shoot tests to confirm this for<br />

any given shooting situation.<br />

Please also note that this does not apply to ramps<br />

where you use the ICU to compensate for the<br />

exposure change (possible with all Arri cameras).<br />

When using the ICU, the exposure time for each<br />

frame does change, but the ICU will change the iris<br />

accordingly to keep the amount of light per frame<br />

constant. Since exposure time changes, HMIs are<br />

going to be unhappy.<br />

Cheers,<br />

Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative<br />

Arriflex Corporation; 1646 N. Oakley Ave, Suite #2,<br />

Chicago, IL 60647-5319, USA<br />

True, but you should note that 1/48 is not actually<br />

safe with 60 Hz line frequency (or 50 Hz, for that<br />

matter). It only works at 24 fps because (in theory)<br />

any shutter angle is safe at 24 fps. To do a ramp<br />

under HMIs you should use a shutter time of 1/60;<br />

Page 737


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

i.e. start at 144 degrees. If you were ramping up<br />

from 24 fps you would probably need a shutter<br />

time of 1/120 to get a feasible shutter angle at the<br />

fast end, so you would start with an angle of 72<br />

degrees.<br />

Simon<br />

No problems whatsoever.<br />

Always with flicker free HMI's, I don't use anything<br />

else, speed changes at various rates but every<br />

speed from 3 fps to 150 fps.<br />

I guess 25 to 75 is the most common major<br />

change, although I have done 25 to 150 without<br />

problems. Most common ramp is 25 to 30/32 just<br />

to take the edge off something or 25 to 18/20 to<br />

speed up a part of a shot.<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff Boyle.<br />

Page 738


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Alan 'little slow in math' Thatcher wrote:<br />

>would give you 24fps at a 45 degree shutter<br />

angle ramping/changing to 60fps with a 180<br />

shutter, *maintaining 1/48 shutter speed the whole<br />

time*.<<br />

Obviously this isn't right at all...the principle is<br />

correct but where did I get those figures???. Maybe<br />

I shouldn't post late at night.<br />

The shutter speed at 60fps would be 1/120 sec.<br />

with the 180 shutter, and the shutter angle to give<br />

the same shutter speed at 24fps would be 72<br />

degrees.<br />

24 = 72<br />

120 360<br />

When I'm working things like this out on the set I<br />

always write it down. It's amazing how much<br />

clearer things look in front of my eyes than behind<br />

them.<br />

AT<br />

Page 739


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Sunsets<br />

I have another "hands-on" question: a while back I<br />

was hit with the prospect of getting a sunset shot<br />

while on location ... the director decided to throw it<br />

at me while we were shooting a sillouette (it was<br />

starting to look beautiful, so I could see where he<br />

was coming from). He wanted the sun setting over<br />

the water, with our sillouetted character in<br />

foreground. Broken cloud ... looked like the sun<br />

was going to pop just above the water and then<br />

slip below the horizon ... so having got the original<br />

shot already we thought we'd wait for it.<br />

Didn't happen as we thought (sun failed to pop at<br />

the horizon), but I shot some 'clean' of the sun<br />

higher up just in case. OK, I shot that as a test<br />

really, because I didn't think it was going to work,<br />

and in TK it didn't, so I guess I was lucky we were<br />

covered!<br />

I had an SR with a 150-600 OpTex ... 85 in the rear<br />

tray, Pola, ND9 to get the stop down ...7293 ...<br />

can't remember my stop (it was last year) but<br />

bracketed somewhere between 8 and 16 I think.<br />

Anyway, as expected the problem was not<br />

exposure (though the sun itself was pretty much<br />

Page 740


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

out the top), but all the stray reflections, including<br />

a major double image, off all the filters. No sharp,<br />

beautiful pic of the sun, with dark clouds passing<br />

through.<br />

My question is, in this position what could have I<br />

done to achieve the desired result? What if we'd<br />

had time to plan it? Overcrank? Close the shutter<br />

angle? All the above?<br />

Just how do they get those awesome long-lens<br />

stock-shots of sunsets?<br />

Phil Burchell DP Auckland, New Zealand.<br />

Go to a much slower stock and ditch every spare<br />

bit of glass?<br />

I'm not sure shutter angle would be a good idea,<br />

depends on foreground content, sunset over sea<br />

will be disturbing with narrow shutter.<br />

Geoff<br />

Page 741


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Phil, I may be mistaken but I believe if you can<br />

slant the filters so that they aren't parallel with the<br />

front of the lens you will greatly reduce the<br />

reflections. Similar to slanting a wall picture to<br />

keep the camera from seeing the reflection of a<br />

light. Panavision probably offers something that<br />

will do the trick or you can contrive your own<br />

arrangement to keep the filters at an angle other<br />

than parallel to the lens.<br />

I'm also left wondering if putting the polarizer last<br />

might help reduce the reflections.<br />

Allen, Jim R. III<br />

I remember one of the first shots I did of the sun<br />

on a picture. It was of the sun sinking behind some<br />

trees in Tuscany, on a film called 'Much Ado About<br />

Nothing'. It was the end of the shooting day and<br />

the cameraman asked me to knock off a few close<br />

shots of the sun(I was the first assistant, or focus<br />

puller). I duly loaded up with pola, ND etc and shot<br />

Page 742


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

away. Next day Ken Branagh remarked acidly at<br />

rushes, "I see, so this film is set on the planet of<br />

three suns, is it?" I cringed in shame.<br />

But I think using any filter forward of the lens may<br />

result in this problem. There is a trick that can<br />

work, to swing the matte box slightly away from<br />

the lens so that the filters are at a slight angle to<br />

the film plane. This means any double reflection is<br />

out of the field of view.<br />

Obviously you must watch for and eliminate any<br />

light leak round the rear of the matte box. This<br />

trick is useful with candles or any hotspot in the<br />

frame when using filters.<br />

In fact Panavision do offer a matte box with an<br />

inclining stage specifically for this problem. Using<br />

gels or filters behind the lens should also improve<br />

things, and or using shutter or camera speed to<br />

reduce exposure instead of NDs or pola filters.<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

I've shot a few of these, the ingredients include: (1)<br />

the right time, day, place, and atmospheric<br />

Page 743


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

conditions (a.k.a. luck), (2) a long lens with a focal<br />

length of 200mm or greater, preferably a prime so<br />

you have less flair and stray reflections, (4) No<br />

filters, or at most a single filter in a tilting filter<br />

stage set at the proper angle to avoid reflections,<br />

that sun is one big specular, my experience has<br />

been it's better to stop way down that to use<br />

multiple NDs, forget about image degradation at<br />

smaller f/stops in this case, and (5) r eversal films<br />

often leads to better sunsets due to the increased<br />

color saturation with underexposure, then make a<br />

internegative from the reversal film, though I've<br />

caught a beautiful sunset on the old Agfa XT 320<br />

negative film, but then again, it fit the desaturated<br />

look of the film.<br />

Dave Tames<br />

Best sunset I've ever shot consisted of 5298 with<br />

only a sunset filter in front of a long lens stopped<br />

way down. The foreground objects were white<br />

buildings, which turned very blue, but were barely<br />

on the toe. When properly timed, it looked very<br />

Page 744


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

good with the orange sunset and not too orange<br />

surroundings contrasted by the barely blue<br />

buildings. I believe that one of the other things<br />

that helped this shot out in terms of flares, was the<br />

fact that the sun was in the middle of the frame (in<br />

the crosshairs), so any flares from the reflections in<br />

the glass would be contained inside the already<br />

bright areas of the sun.<br />

Conrad Hunziker, III<br />

Thanks Dave for your detailed answer. Any clues as<br />

to how you set your stop? I remember metering the<br />

sun (through a suitable stack of ND to protect my<br />

eye) at a little above f45 (ISO100), but just outside<br />

the rim of the sun itself the reading dropped off<br />

rapidly to around 11 or 16 ... 3 stops roughly. I<br />

guessed at around a 22 (to put the sun in zone 7-<br />

8) but it was still out the top in telecine (no detail)<br />

so I guessed wrong.<br />

On reversal you must be hitting a much less<br />

arbitrary stop (i.e. being more precise), so I'm<br />

curious.<br />

Page 745


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Phil Burchell DP Auckland, New Zealand.<br />

Thanks for the replies about shooting the sun.<br />

That's what I love about this forum: I can ask a<br />

question like that and get a straightforward<br />

answer, even if it's one that I should slap my<br />

forehead and go "Duh ... why didn't I think of<br />

that"!! Yet another little gem to go into my<br />

shooting notes file.<br />

I remember thinking about that at the time: should<br />

I use a polarizer at all (I had an N6 available), and<br />

then does it's position in the stack have any effect.<br />

From memory, it didn't show any difference<br />

through the viewfinder. I also thought that a pola<br />

in the rear holder (i.e.: last before the gate) might<br />

be best to cut out the indirect stuff (I didn't have<br />

one).<br />

Phil Burchell DP Auckland, New Zealand.<br />

Page 746


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

FYI, we can thank William Fraker, ASC for<br />

suggesting this simple feature to Panavision for<br />

solving such a common problem.<br />

Layne Uyeno<br />

Here is another mystery to solve. I put a filter in<br />

front of a zoom (12.5 to 75mm) lens on my Bolex (<br />

Glass, not the behind the lens gelatin type). I shot<br />

the sunset over the course of about twenty degrees<br />

above horizon, to actually disappearing, at<br />

different focal lengths.<br />

NO REFLECTIONS. Maybe it was because I was in<br />

Hawaii?<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

I used a still camera once ( well I was on vacation<br />

with my Bolex, and didn't have my spot meter with<br />

me) used the internal meter to read the whole<br />

Page 747


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

scene ( including the water, sun, and sky),<br />

converted the exposure for the Bolex. it was<br />

Perfect.<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Caleb Deschanel discusses this in the book "Film<br />

Lighting" - he says that the exposure depends on<br />

the focal length and how large the sun appears in<br />

the frame. With an extremely long lens, with the<br />

disc of the sun filling the frame, obviously you<br />

have to expose for the sun itself (he suggested<br />

making it little hot by overexposing it after taking<br />

a spot-meter reading).<br />

If the sun only fills a small part of the frame, then<br />

you'll expose more for the sky around the sun.<br />

Here in LA, when I've shot the sun setting with a<br />

long lens (like a 600mm), I've usually used 5245<br />

with one 85N9 filter, usually at a f/16. I like the<br />

double orange effect from the 85; but I've never<br />

used more than one filter out of fear of reflections.<br />

I find that if the sun is huge enough in frame, it's<br />

pretty hard to underexpose it, unless you are<br />

Page 748


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

shooting on a very hazy day (in which case it<br />

becomes easier to spot meter it...)<br />

I once got to shoot a sun setting behind a<br />

mountaintop in Oregon with a 1200mm lens - it<br />

was strange because I could see a focus difference<br />

between a tree on the mountaintop, and the sun<br />

ball behind it - and that tree was miles away. The<br />

biggest problem became keeping the camera<br />

steady enough.<br />

I had to lock off the eyepiece and just let it run so<br />

that I would not add any vibrations.<br />

David Mullen<br />

On that large fireball we call the sun. Using a<br />

600mm or longer will get you that large ball.<br />

And as far as exposure is concerned I'll have to<br />

agree with Geoff, using a slow film stock is the<br />

best route. A little trick I learned a few years back<br />

when making an exposure reading for a sunset<br />

shot: Don't aim your spot meter at the sun....go for<br />

the sky surrounding the sun.<br />

Page 749


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Now grant it the gods that be will not give you a<br />

spectacular sunset you would like to have<br />

everyday. In LA we don't always have those<br />

wonderful smog screened orange sunsets...there<br />

are days oddly enough where the marine layer<br />

turns it into a "white sunset"...white sun, white sky.<br />

Graduated filters will make you look like a hero!<br />

Just don't compensate your exposure for the<br />

grads...I've seen a few who have made that<br />

mistake.<br />

Hope this helped!<br />

Luc G. Nicknair<br />

Well maybe. I'd like to think it was a localised effect<br />

so I could argue the case for shooting next<br />

production there. You don't always see the<br />

reflections; according to Murphy's Law, they only<br />

appear when you get a really good sunset and<br />

you're in the right place to shoot it, and everything<br />

else is working, i.e. foreground action etc. They<br />

don't appear when you're struggling to change<br />

Page 750


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

stocks or with a camera jam, or the actor trips up<br />

or fluffs his lines on that clifftop sunset shot.<br />

Sometimes you can get away with a single filter; I<br />

would imagine if the front element of the lens has<br />

a marked curvature and the sun is sufficiently off<br />

centre frame then any reflection will be outside<br />

field of view. The problem seems to occur mostly<br />

when you have multiple layers of flat glass in front<br />

of the lens. I suppose if they were absolutely<br />

parallel to each other and the sun was dead centre,<br />

then the internal reflections caused would cover<br />

themselves.<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Page 751


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Tilt & Shift Lenses<br />

Hi guys,<br />

any thoughts on "shift n' tilt" lenses usage ? I've<br />

never worked with and would appreciate some<br />

words of advice. (I'm particularly concerned on<br />

depth of field and exposure corrections)<br />

Rui Pocas<br />

Let me strongly recommend an introductory text<br />

on view cameras (maybe Adams' _Camera and<br />

Lens_ and an afternoon spent with a 4X5 camera.<br />

This will give you a good idea of what can be<br />

accomplished with swings and tilts, and the effect<br />

of shifting the plane of focus is very visible on the<br />

ground glass.<br />

When you go to perspective control lenses with<br />

that dinky little 35mm negative, you won't have<br />

half the control that you can get with a view<br />

camera, but you'll know what to do with it.<br />

Page 752


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

--Scott<br />

It really depends what you want to use them for, if<br />

you want to use them "correctly" i.e. to correct<br />

perspective or increase depth of field in a given<br />

plane then your best bet is to get a book like the<br />

one Sinar ( makers of 5 * 4 & 10 * 8 view cameras )<br />

publish on the subject.<br />

If you want to use it for effects type shots i.e. most<br />

of the picture soft as you can and only a very<br />

narrow strip sharp, like the commercial I've just<br />

finished shooting, then it's probably best that you<br />

still read the book but then you just play until you<br />

get the focus effect you want.<br />

The exposure is pretty constant across the<br />

shiftable image with the Arri T&S lenses but drops<br />

off at the more extreme shifts with the<br />

Clairmont/CP lenses. However, the Clairmont/CP<br />

lenses are capable of more extreme effects than<br />

the Arri ones.<br />

I use these lenses a lot and don't really have a<br />

preference for either, they are both good in<br />

Page 753


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

different areas, e.g. it's a lot easier to follow focus<br />

with the Arri lenses.<br />

As a taster and an intro to the idea you may want<br />

to try the CP swing lenses that are based on the<br />

Canon still lenses. You only have one plane to work<br />

with and therefore can get results much more<br />

quickly.<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Depth of field is best judged by eye. There really<br />

isn't any other way.<br />

Exposure correction only applies for extreme close<br />

up subjects, the best method I've found is to<br />

measure the image size in the plane of focus with<br />

the lens set flat, then apply the amount of swing<br />

and tilt desired, and apply the appropriate<br />

correction for the magnification factor, using<br />

formulae or tables. However I've only used the<br />

swing&shifts for normally composed shots on<br />

people rather than for extreme close-ups on packs<br />

etc, and I suspect the previous advice is good - do<br />

Page 754


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

some research on view cameras and how to use<br />

them.<br />

I've used the Clairmont kit and the Arri kit. The Arri<br />

kit seems easier to use - has better locks and a<br />

little scale for each adjustment and better build<br />

quality - but the Clairmont kit has a wider range of<br />

lenses.<br />

They're both good though. Pulling focus is very<br />

difficult though. But you can do things like set up a<br />

plane of focus where an object will be sharp at 18"<br />

from the lens on the left of frame and sharp at 50'<br />

on the right. You can then track without pulling<br />

focus at all if you place your subject in the plane of<br />

focus. Allow plenty of time to set up your shot!<br />

They have become a little over-used here in the UK<br />

on commercials but they're very effective. I'd love<br />

to carry a set on a picture one day with the express<br />

idea of integrating them into the aesthetic. They're<br />

useful in a more mundane way, too - remember<br />

those in car profile two-shots at night where one<br />

actor is sharp and the other is a blob? Bring on the<br />

swing-shifts! Got a raking two-shot in a dark<br />

interior and can't quite make the focus split? And<br />

so on.<br />

Chris Plevin<br />

Page 755


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Kodak has a good book called "Photography with<br />

Large Format Camera's", which although a tad brief<br />

in the lens theory area, explains it all pretty well.<br />

I've shot 4 TVC's with shift-tilts now ... all of them<br />

to make less interesting subjects a little more<br />

'fruity'.<br />

Here in NZ, we only have access to a system<br />

manufactured by Sammy's in Australia. It's a PL-<br />

mount with a solid bracket attached, which holds<br />

the lens 'board' (actually a threaded plate) ... the<br />

lens-board is connected to the PL with a cloth<br />

bellows and can be racked in and out for focus, has<br />

lens rise and fall, shift left and right from optical<br />

centre, and of course 'swings' both X and Y axis as<br />

well.<br />

I presume most systems would be similar, though<br />

Clairmonts looks much more precise. The Sammy's<br />

one is not the best ... made for 35, it only mounts<br />

to 16mm cameras with some difficulty and<br />

compromise (the bracket off the PL mount hits the<br />

viewfinder optics on both Arri and Aatons unless<br />

it's oriented straight up from the lens port ... no T-<br />

Page 756


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Bar split). Lens selection is limited to 25, 35 and<br />

90mm, and practically none of the adjustments can<br />

be done on the fly. Even pulling focus moves the<br />

lens (and therefore the image) too much that it's<br />

distracting.<br />

For those not familiar with shift-tilts, here's how I<br />

get my head around them. For a start, the lenses<br />

are not standard cine lenses. To work they have<br />

much wider coverage at the film plane ... I imagine<br />

a circle maybe 4 inches in diameter surrounding<br />

the camera's aperture at the film plane. The depthof-field<br />

indicated by the lens can be seen as the<br />

'thickness' of that circle. Moving the lens up or<br />

down, left or right effectively moves that circle in<br />

relation to the gate. The gate gets to look at any<br />

part of that circle of you like. Naturally there is<br />

vignetting around the edges, and the lens<br />

sharpness drops off out there too.<br />

In normal, optically centred position, the gate is at<br />

the centre of the circle. Shifting the lens down<br />

shifts that whole circle down (or the image-area<br />

the film is seeing up), and so on. Hence the<br />

perspective capability ... e.g., looking at a tall<br />

building with the camera horizontal, you can raise<br />

the lens up (do a 'rise'), to see the top of the<br />

building.<br />

Page 757


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

You're not tilting the camera, you're tilting the<br />

optical light path! The film plane is still parallel to<br />

the building (it's still straight up and down as the<br />

camera is horizontal), so there's no convergence of<br />

the vertical lines!<br />

Swinging the lens takes the plane of focus away<br />

from being parallel to the film ... that same cir cle<br />

of light no longer strikes the film plane evenly, but<br />

cuts through it at an angle. That's how the<br />

interesting focus effects happen ... the plane of<br />

focus is not the way we're used to, and performs<br />

strangely! It's a good effect, but it's also practical<br />

as in extending focus for the car shot mentioned<br />

earlier. The thing is, if the driver in that car shot<br />

moved too far forward or backward, they could<br />

move out of the depth of field making for a very<br />

odd focus effect in an otherwise very 'normal' shot!<br />

OK, couple other points ... exposure correction is<br />

not necessary until you get into macro-territory,<br />

where your standard macro theory applies ... same<br />

as any bellows macro attachment. In our case (with<br />

the Sammy's unit), compensation wasn't necessary<br />

when focusing above 15" for the wider lenses, and<br />

I think 3' for the 90mm. That's pretty close.<br />

Can't use a Matte box ... it'd get in the way of the<br />

optics. So all filtration has to be on the lens ... i.e.<br />

Page 758


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Series 9 or similar. For the same reason, you have<br />

to really take care of flare with lensers thoughtfully<br />

positioned by the grips. Steadicam would be a<br />

nightmare I imagine.<br />

Lenses are fairly slow, even though they're primes<br />

... T2.8 to T4.<br />

That's about all I can think of right now ... sorry<br />

about raving on a bit, but I guess someone asked!<br />

Phil Burchell<br />

Shift/Tilt lenses (or bellows systems) allow you to<br />

play with some of the optical properties that are<br />

usually fixed in prime or zoom lenses.<br />

You can change the plane of focus (usually its<br />

parallel to the film plane) and/or change the<br />

geometrical appearance of any subject in the shot<br />

(shoot into mirrors without seeing the camera,<br />

correct for distortion when shooting up a high<br />

skyscraper).<br />

You can see a changed plane of focus effect in a<br />

bunch of commercials on TV these days, it has<br />

become somewhat fashionable to put part of the<br />

Page 759


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

image out of focus. Another useful application is<br />

shooting two actors talking to each other, who are<br />

at different distances to the camera. If the depth of<br />

field normally does not hold both, you can angle<br />

the depth of field with a Shift/Tilt system, and get<br />

both in focus.<br />

Re: Exposure correction with Shift/Tilt Systems<br />

Both the Arri and the Clairmont systems have a<br />

ruler printed in the manual (make sure you get a<br />

manual from the rental house!). When you do a<br />

close up, place the ruler in the shot, aligning one<br />

end with the left frame edge.<br />

On the right frame edge you can read now the<br />

magnification ratio as well as your exposure<br />

compensation. It does not get any easier. > but the<br />

Clairmont kit has a wider range of lenses.<br />

Not true anymore. The standard Arri Shift/Tilt<br />

system comes with four lenses: 24 mm T4.0 45<br />

mm T2.8 90 mm T2.8 110 mm T2.0<br />

Arri just released two more:18 mm T2.8 20 mm<br />

T2.8<br />

Later this year we will have the following focal<br />

lengths available: 28 mm T2.8 35 mm T2.8 60 mm<br />

T2.8 80 mm T2.8 150 mm T2.8<br />

In addition we have a Retro Adapter for the<br />

shift/tilt system, that allows you to mount Arri<br />

Page 760


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

primes to the shift/tilt system "up-side down", that<br />

is the lens front looks to the camera, and the PL<br />

mount side becomes the lens front. This is great<br />

for macro cinematography.<br />

In addition we have a PL mount adapter, that allows<br />

you to mount Arri Macro lenses on the shift/tilt<br />

system. Use this for extreme close-up<br />

cinematography.<br />

The Arri Shift/Tilt system can be viewed at our<br />

Burbank location (818 841 7070) or at CSC in NY<br />

(212 757 0906). If you come to Showbiz West in<br />

LA, you can see the Arri Shift/Tilt System in all its<br />

glory at the Arri booth. I will be there, too, so come<br />

by and say hello!<br />

Marc Shipman-Mueller<br />

Page 761


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Time-lapse<br />

I have a time lapse shot coming up and I'm<br />

thinking of trying a longer shutter speed than I've<br />

usually used.<br />

I need about a hundred frames and I'll take them<br />

over a four hour period.<br />

Thanks for any thoughts,<br />

D.P.<br />

What exposures are you thinking of using? Are you<br />

shooting day or night?<br />

From the header, I assume your are shooting a city,<br />

but Skyline or street and building details? Are you<br />

trying to compress 4 hours into 100 frames, or are<br />

you looking for a time of day thing?<br />

Well... the Norris starts off at 1/16th and goes<br />

longer from there. I have quite a bit of experience<br />

with the 1/16th and 1/8th settings and I wonder if<br />

Page 762


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I'm *missing out* by not having tried longer times<br />

on this well worn subject.<br />

The frame is a cityscape skyline (wide) with the sun<br />

going down about a third from the edge. Camera<br />

position is building top; 1200 feet. I'm formatted<br />

super -35 and need a sunset and sunrise, both. The<br />

cut will take the best five seconds going both ways;<br />

meaning night to day, then day to night. I'm quite<br />

happy with the 1/16th look but the director is<br />

encouraging me to tend towards the abstract...<br />

I'm planning on shooting four hours around each<br />

*event* using a thirty-second interval.<br />

Thanks,<br />

D.P.<br />

I was very happy with the New York Sunrises that I<br />

shot last year with 1/3 second exposures, I also<br />

used this for shadows moving across Broadway,<br />

shadows down one side of the street across the<br />

road and back up the other side.<br />

Page 763


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The longer exposure seemed to smooth things out<br />

a lot.<br />

Too much Tuborg Gold, the speel chucker is going<br />

to earn it's money tonight :-)<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff Boyle.<br />

My experience is that a 30 second interval is on the<br />

long side, clouds can move so quick across the<br />

frame that they are only in the frame for a couple<br />

of frames (depending on lens choice and clouds-<br />

passing-speed of course) I used to go for a 15<br />

second interval, nowadays even more towards 10<br />

seconds. Or you might try a 15 second interval and<br />

speed it up in post. Good luck<br />

Mick van Rossum<br />

Page 764


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

what kind of lenses are you shooting on? You can<br />

try putting on 10:1 zoom and shoot 2sec./exp.<br />

frames with a slow zoom out from the sun. Clouds<br />

tend to look more 'milky' and the movement does<br />

not look quite real. Of course you're going to be<br />

using tons of ND (seven stop difference).<br />

Are you thinking of panning the camera through<br />

this sequence? Maybe you can recompose into the<br />

setting sun?<br />

Good luck, sounds like fun,<br />

Duraid Munajim<br />

Longer shutterspeeds will tend to take the "edge"<br />

the frenetic activity of things like cars, clouds, and<br />

trees. They will become more blurred; longer car<br />

light trails at night, whispier clouds, more<br />

transparent moving cars in daylight, blurred trees<br />

(depending on wind conditions). At around 1 sec<br />

exposures, night cityscapes begin to take on a<br />

surreal lighting effect. You begin to get the<br />

impression that massive amounts of lighting was<br />

Page 765


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

employed, because the buildings that would be<br />

impossible to light _are_ lit by ambient light. The<br />

longer the exposure, the brighter the normally<br />

dark buildings become. Faster stock also helps.<br />

Also, you get moving clouds in the night sky. If you<br />

want to see and example of this, look at the<br />

backgrounds for the opening to ABC's Monday<br />

Night Football. It's about a minute long opening<br />

that starts at 9pm SHARP eastern time (if you wait<br />

till after the commercials, you've missed it). These<br />

backgrounds are at about 2 second exposures with<br />

wide apertures on Vision 320T, some on Vision<br />

250T. However, one of the biggest challenges you<br />

have is taking the light change into consideration.<br />

Lots of ND and/or deep stop on the lens in the<br />

daylight, gradually changing to a clean wide open<br />

lens.<br />

Moving the camera is possible by hand, but tends<br />

to be a bit jerky. Better to use a motion control<br />

head to get smoothest motion.<br />

Good luck,<br />

Don Canfield<br />

Page 766


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Don,<br />

I recently shot some pixilation of a Mardi Gras<br />

parade that came out well, I did a lot of moves<br />

(zoom, pan, tilt) @ about a 2 SEC interval. No<br />

intervalometer, just playing around- but now I<br />

want to do it right and found your post very<br />

helpful.<br />

Question tho, any idea what to rent for shutter<br />

control on an Aaton? I like the thought of leaving a<br />

2 sec dwell. also, if using an ND it would seem to<br />

be abrupt to remove it, but I'm guessing you timed<br />

it out?<br />

thanks again, Caleb<br />

For instances such as that which started this<br />

discussion, a cityscape, changing ND on the lens<br />

and compensating with the iris works. You've got<br />

to be in a situation where the interval is long<br />

enough so you can swap the filters, and the focal<br />

length and distance to subject combination<br />

Page 767


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

sufficient to allow for the slight shift in depth of<br />

field that will occur. For example, if you swap a<br />

ND9 to an ND6, you would have to stop down the<br />

iris one stop to equalize the exposure. I think the<br />

last time I did this I worked in a 2 stop range on<br />

the lens, then changed filters. I was working with 3<br />

cameras, longest lens was about a 35. Cameras<br />

were on top of a building in midtown Manhattan,<br />

looking north. Closest building in frame was a<br />

couple of blocks away. We worked with a bunch of<br />

ND (don't remember how much), at about a T16 in<br />

full daylight. As the light began to move in the<br />

afternoon, I opened stop gradually (following the<br />

light drop). When the lens got to T8, I swapped out<br />

2 stops of ND, and stopped lens down 2 stops, and<br />

continued to follow light down. This continued till<br />

after sunset, by which time I had lens wide open,<br />

and no ND. Exposure pops, if any, were buried in<br />

the light change, clouds, and time-lapse action.<br />

In time lapse, there are pronounced areas of right<br />

and wrong at the exposure extremes, but a very<br />

wide gray area in between with lots of forgiveness<br />

where lots of things work quite well, even if they<br />

don't seem like they should.<br />

Don Canfield<br />

Page 768


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

These is a rather neat British invention made by<br />

Camera Dynamics (I think).<br />

It consists of a micro processor controlled stepper<br />

motor and works with a clockwork Bolex (possibly<br />

with other cameras but this is the only one I know<br />

of). It's far more versatile than most other systems<br />

as it allows for time exposures, variable intervals<br />

between exposures and even ramping of time<br />

intervals between exposures. If you're still looking,<br />

give me a call at OpTex on +44 (0) 181 441 2199<br />

and I'll see if I can help. Apologies for the delay,<br />

but I've only just reconnected to the list.<br />

Brian Rose<br />

Thank-you to those who contributed to this thread.<br />

Your input was welcome advice that helped me<br />

choose the following scenario....<br />

Cityscape Night - to - Cityscape Day<br />

Page 769


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

1/4 second exposures,<br />

Single frame burst,<br />

15 second intervals,<br />

Arri III / Norris Intervalometer/ Zeiss 18mm T1.3,<br />

Wide open Night... to ... 1.2ND T11 Day,<br />

Kodak 5246,<br />

Very light, fast moving, high altitude (cirrus?) cloud<br />

at night, Clearing to pristine blue sky at sunrise<br />

plus thirty minutes.<br />

Unfortunately, we had problems with the Norris<br />

that I can only attribute to EMI (electro-magnetic<br />

interference). This combination of hardware WILL<br />

NOT WORK in the presence of strong EMI. We were<br />

set up on a building top with some<br />

FM/Cellular/Microwave transmitters and things did<br />

not go at all well.<br />

Strangely, the shots did work when the sun was not<br />

in shot. All the pre-sunrise and post-sunset<br />

footage worked but capping shutter/run-awaymotor<br />

problems ruined the scripted rise and fall of<br />

the sun. We tested and tried EVERYTHING including<br />

units from two different suppliers and more workarounds,<br />

foil, cable-substitution and voodoo<br />

incantations than I care to list. I stand by my<br />

suppliers AND my assistants; both performed<br />

exhaustive pre and post shoot tests<br />

Page 770


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I need to *repair* this situation and what I would<br />

like to do is repeat the exact shot with a manual<br />

single frame camera that can do 1/4 second<br />

frames ( MECHANICALLY, Manually) ) for me. What<br />

should I be using? I'm guessing the answer is some<br />

kind of animation camera. Inching the 435 has an<br />

immediate appeal but I can't conscionably ask the<br />

producer to bring me another camera that is so<br />

dependant on electronics. What's in the big<br />

cupboard that can give me what I need?<br />

Maybe those lead aprons they use for X-Ray techs<br />

would work.<br />

(un?)Fortunately, I have an understanding producer<br />

who needs results not research!!!<br />

BFN,<br />

D.P.<br />

BTW, I must take this one on the chin for not<br />

spotting the problem in advance. I have apologised<br />

to the producer but still feel a little put out. I DID<br />

make clear to several different suppliers what I was<br />

planning to do and NO ONE mentioned it might be<br />

problematic. Post meltdown dialogue has included<br />

some references to this problem and THAT REALLY<br />

STEAMS ME.<br />

Page 771


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The best type of camera for doing Animation and<br />

Time lapse, is a camera with a focal plane shutter<br />

(IMHO). In the animation house that's what we used<br />

(Mitchells, Rackovers, and Fries Conversions).<br />

With reflex conversions you do have to compensate<br />

for the light lost through the Pellicle. Many<br />

Conversions use Nikon mounts, however I am sure<br />

that there are other mounts available ( I know of<br />

one fellow that has both Leica and Panavision<br />

Mounts for his Fries Conversion).<br />

The advantage to the Focal Plane shutter camera is<br />

that you don't need a capping shutter, as NO light<br />

leaks through to the film.<br />

The advantage to the Mitchell is that it has Great<br />

Registration, and not generally being considered a<br />

Sound camera, and also since it is not in such great<br />

demand, it can be cheaper to rent.<br />

NOTE, NOT all Models of Mitchell cameras use a<br />

Focal Plane Shutter, so Make sure of your order.<br />

The other disadvantage to Mitchells with a Pellicle<br />

beam splitter, is that Not all lenses will fit on them,<br />

I believe Certain German Lenses with exceptionally<br />

deep Mechanical protuberances, just won't do it.<br />

This does limit your use of Zeiss Glass, which is a<br />

Page 772


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

pity. I'm not sure which lenses do work and which<br />

don't.<br />

As to the Norris, it is a fine machine, however in<br />

my experience I found that it had a few quirks. The<br />

mechanical counters tended to Add a frame every<br />

so often, ( if I remember it was every 50 t0 70<br />

frames). This was solved with the electronic frame<br />

counter. I found that when powering up, the Norris<br />

would take a frame, which meant that you couldn't<br />

break a shot in the middle to take a rest, unless<br />

you left the intervalometer powered up.<br />

They also were very sensitive to voltage shifts. This<br />

was probably only a problem where I was working<br />

as the Power supplies were not always heavy duty,<br />

and would drift. Get a Really good Power supply, or<br />

LOTS of Battery Power.<br />

Also, remember in Time Lapse, and Animation.<br />

Sync has a whole different meaning, sounds like<br />

that wasn't your problem, but never hurts to be TO<br />

SURE about that.<br />

Good luck with the next one.<br />

I believe Cinevision in New York has and rents a<br />

Mitchell/Fries Conversion with a Focal Plane<br />

shutter, and Probably a Norris to go along with it.<br />

(Possible a video tap as well)<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Page 773


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I'm no stop-motion guru so maybe I am a good<br />

person to make a suggestion here. Fifteen years<br />

ago when I was working at Victor Duncan in<br />

Chicago, the 'state of the art' stop motion rig we<br />

had was a Mitchell S35R Mk II (usually called just<br />

the 'Mark II') with a Mitchell animation motor and a<br />

clockwork controller which had a big dial on it like<br />

a darkroom timer. I went out with this setup a few<br />

times as an AC and it worked just fine: no ups, no<br />

extras, no problems. You need a screwdriver to set<br />

the Mitchell's variable shutter (on top of the<br />

camera) and the motor and controller work off AC,<br />

which it sounds like you would be able to come up<br />

with.<br />

The only tricky thing about this rig is making sure<br />

that both motor and camera movement are in the<br />

correct 'parked' position before putting the motor<br />

on. As I recall it is possible to get it 90 or 180<br />

degrees off. But that's basic AC'ing--this is about<br />

as 'meat and potatoes' as you can get.<br />

There are now Fries motors for the Mk II which do<br />

the same thing as the old setup, probably much<br />

Page 774


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

better; however they may also be electronically<br />

vulnerable as well. Heck, maybe you should take a<br />

(tested) electronic and clockwork controller both<br />

with you, so you've got a backup either way!<br />

The weak link for the stock Mk IIs was the BNCR<br />

lens mount, for which we had only ancient Super<br />

Baltar lenses, so we nearly always recommended<br />

the cameras with a Panavision hard front which<br />

would allow you to use the Pvision lenses. Probably<br />

a supplier like Clairmont has adapted them to PL<br />

mounts as well. There are still lots of these<br />

cameras around, though probably not on the front<br />

shelf of your local rental shop. Ask around and<br />

you'll find one.<br />

This is an old-fashioned, low-tech, mechanical<br />

method. As such it is not at all fancy or sexy and<br />

may be looked at askance by younger producers.<br />

(The same kind who recently asked 'what is this???'<br />

when I had an Arri IIc brought out for a hand-held<br />

shot.) But it does work.<br />

Best wishes,<br />

Alan<br />

Page 775


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

If I recall that camera has a spinning Reflex mirror<br />

shutter. Not A Focal plane shutter. I've used it for<br />

animation, with exactly the motor set you<br />

described, however, for extended intervals between<br />

exposures A capping shutter is a great thing to<br />

have.<br />

With the Focal Plane Shutter, no capping shutter is<br />

necessary.<br />

Steven ( I love Mitchell Cameras) Gladstone<br />

The Mitchell S35R/R35/Mk II et all all have a<br />

spinning mirror, with a real (and variable) shutter<br />

mounted behind them. So you get the best of both<br />

worlds -- except for the fact that the flange focal<br />

distance is so great as to limit you to Panavision<br />

(when the camera is modded) and BNCR and S35R<br />

lenses.<br />

But it's a pretty cool camera.<br />

I have a Mitchell GC I probably am going to Friesize.<br />

Still trying to decide between the cheaper<br />

pellicle version (uses cheap Nikon mount lenses, or<br />

Page 776


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

other still lenses) or the spinning mirror version.<br />

Anyone?<br />

Jeff "cap this shutter" Kreines<br />

Have you called Dan Norris and asked him?<br />

Perhaps a lead box around the intervalometer<br />

control box?<br />

The old Mitchell motor would be better. Think I<br />

finally sold mine... you can easily make a Mitchell<br />

animation motor using a SloSyn 72 RPM sync<br />

motor, cam, microswitch, capacitor, and a panel<br />

cut to fit the side of the Mitchell.<br />

Oops, you are using an Arri III.<br />

Sorry, no ideas for you.<br />

Jeff Kreines<br />

Page 777


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The focal plane shutter of the ACL (non<br />

variable)makes this camera a _very_ good choice<br />

for 16mm time lapse.<br />

There is a Norris motor for the ACL too<br />

.<br />

--jp<br />

Yes, though I always wondered why Dan attaches it<br />

to the inching knob instead of coupling it directly.<br />

Yes, I know, it's easier!... but still....<br />

Jeff "Bolex’s are also good for time lapse, Mitchell<br />

16s and Maurers too, but I have an intervalometer<br />

for my Aaton" Kreines<br />

Gee, I've heard of some flaky things with Norris<br />

motors, usually having to do with power problems.<br />

This is a new one though. Maybe Dan Norris has a<br />

suggestion. Other than that, alternate<br />

Page 778


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

camera/motor combos that might work follow. I've<br />

indicated limitations that I've found with each.<br />

Mitchell with Lynx C -50 motor and time-lapse sync<br />

box. Source: MCRS in LA; Stone Engineering in LA;<br />

possibly Cinevision in NY. Limitations: Lens<br />

selections. Fries with Arri shutter can use PL,<br />

Panavision, Nikon, but require capping shutter,<br />

though at a 15 second interval you may get away<br />

without one. TEST THIS FIRST! Fries with pellicle<br />

beamsplitter and focal plane shutter can use Nikon,<br />

BNCR. Does not require capping shutter.<br />

Unconverted by Fries uses Mitchell mount, BNCR,<br />

or possibly Panavision.<br />

Panavision camera with Time-lapse synchronizer.<br />

I've used these a few times, and the best ones<br />

came from Victor Duncan in Atlanta. VD Atlanta<br />

has modified magazines that have very low torque<br />

take-up motors. These mags provide just enough<br />

take-up torque to pull single frame out of camera<br />

body. If normal torque is applied, mag motor can<br />

pull film after the motor has stopped.<br />

Mitchell with Jackson/Woodburn motor. This is an<br />

English motor, and I've only ever seen them twice<br />

in the US -- once on a motion control shot in NY<br />

last spring. Equipment came from Samuelson's in<br />

London. The other time was at ShowBiz Expo in LA<br />

Page 779


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

in June. I don't know of any US suppliers.<br />

Limitations are the same as listed above for Fries.<br />

Mitchell with old AC powered animation motor.<br />

Limitation would be listed by the supplier, if you<br />

could find one of these antiques. Try Cinevision in<br />

NY. Mitchell with steppermotor and motion control<br />

computer. This is really an overkill solution to the<br />

problem, but is would work. See above for camera<br />

limitations.<br />

Wish I could offer more help. I really hate weird<br />

flaky problems like this!<br />

Don Canfield<br />

As a real world production tool, the mirror<br />

conversion probably is more versatile. Lens mounts<br />

include PL, Panavision, Nikon (probably others),<br />

viewing system is FAR brighter than the pellicle.<br />

However, the focal-plane variable shutter is<br />

completely removed and replaced with an Arri-like<br />

spinning mirror shutter. This means fixed 180<br />

degree shutter, and the shutter is not light-tight<br />

Page 780


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

enough for long time-lapse or stopmotion<br />

animation.<br />

Pellicle version is limited to BNCR, Nikon (and other<br />

still lenses), some Panavision (check with Fries).<br />

Variable focal-plane shutter is preserved, intact,<br />

and usable. It's possible to install an internal<br />

capping shutter if desired. It's a great<br />

animation/optical/motion control camera. Because<br />

the image must pass through 2 beamsplitters if<br />

you use video (pellicle and tap splitter), viewfinder<br />

image is quite dark. There is a movable mirror<br />

option which will allow you to direct all light to<br />

video OR viewfinder. Maybe this could be modified<br />

similar to the Fries door for the Mitchell<br />

S35R/R35/Mk II which provides an orientable<br />

finder with a selection to send all info to the finder,<br />

all to the video, or split it 50/50. Oh, and finally<br />

the pellicle drinks up 1/3 stop light (which is sends<br />

to video/viewfinder). No shutter flicker, though.<br />

(But this makes syncing to a monitor a nightmare.)<br />

In my opinion, the mirror version is much more<br />

cameraman friendly, where the pellicle is more<br />

technician friendly. In regards to wide lenses, I<br />

know there are issues with different lenses on<br />

either version. Check with Doug Fries.<br />

Page 781


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Also, in my opinion, there are other motors that<br />

you should checkout besides the Fries. Lynx<br />

Robotics C -50 and the English-made<br />

Jackson/Woodburn are worth considering. You can<br />

find both of these advertised in American<br />

Cinematographer.<br />

Don Canfield<br />

Here is a belated response to the request for info<br />

regarding time lapse of cityscapes at sunset. I<br />

recently shot a commercial project that required<br />

just such a scene. We set up an Arri 35-3<br />

overlooking downtown Cincinnati, facing towards<br />

the west. The location was chosen for a great raked<br />

view of the major buildings as well as a foreground<br />

freeway which would be important once day<br />

became night. My stock was 5245 and I used a<br />

Zeiss 25mm Super Speed lens. I stopped down to<br />

T-11 and with the Norris intervalometer set at<br />

1/16th second exposure shot three frames a<br />

minute (one every 20-seconds) and continued this<br />

Page 782


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

interval for an hour. By the end of this hour the sun<br />

had set and day had become night. I then opened<br />

the lens up to T 1.3 and switched the Norris unit to<br />

1/2 second exposure at the interval of 1 frame<br />

every second and proceeded to run 5 seconds of<br />

screen time. This longer exposure time (coupled<br />

with the brief interval between frames) yielded<br />

great headlight and taillight streaking from cars on<br />

the foreground freeway. The shot was steadi-gated<br />

during transfer and in post a long registered<br />

dissolve smoothly blended the gradual fade from<br />

day to night with the night city scape for a truly<br />

beautiful scene. The 50 ASA rating doesn't sound<br />

like much but wide open at 1/2 second y ielded<br />

tremendous detail in the buildings.<br />

Page 783


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Tropicalisation<br />

When I was a gaffer I did several jobs in the<br />

Caribbean and the problem you describe is very<br />

common and overwhelming. We found that<br />

spraying and wiping down all the equipment with<br />

silicon helped prevent the corrosion. However, it<br />

was an ongoing tedious chore as anything that<br />

wasn't repeatedly cleaned with fresh water and resiliconed<br />

was likely to oxidize in short time. Even<br />

equipment that wasn't out much was subject to<br />

this condition. Keeping delicate equipment in cases<br />

and wrapped in plastic bags as much as possible<br />

helps cut down on the exposure to the elements.<br />

But the salt water and air is pervasive. It would be<br />

interesting to hear of others solutions to this<br />

problem .<br />

Regards,<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Well chaps,<br />

Page 784


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I was; for my sins the Camera Mechanic on Papillon<br />

in Jamaica back in 1972 and I had 14 weeks of sun<br />

sand and sea together with humidity that was mind<br />

blowing. I found that a wipe down every night with<br />

a soaked WD40 cloth did the job. An oily rag for all<br />

the screws that showed also assisted greatly.<br />

Look in the bottom of any RONFORD leg casting<br />

and you will find holes drilled. This follows my<br />

solution to legs filling with seawater and NOT<br />

draining; They all have been drilled ever since.<br />

Happy Days.<br />

TC.<br />

I've heard some people say that WD40 isn't as good<br />

as silicon and might even have water in it's<br />

ingredients. Although I'm sure using it every night<br />

works fine. Does anyone know what's in WD40?<br />

Jim S.<br />

As I understand it, WD40 is essentially kerosene,<br />

some other oils(petroleum distillates), and<br />

perfume. LPS-1 is the same stuff with different<br />

perfumes. It is a water displacer (WD) NOT a<br />

lubricant. I prefer it to silicone for most metal<br />

Page 785


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

surfaces partially because I have been conditioned<br />

to the smell but also because silicone is, at a<br />

microscopic level, particulate, and can, in fact<br />

cause wear on bearings.(or so I've been told.) WD is<br />

thin enough that it doesn't collect quite as much<br />

grit as some of the other sprays, and won't hurt<br />

electrical contacts. Be careful not to spray too<br />

much around LCD displays, as they have of two<br />

pieces of glass that are generally touching and the<br />

WD can wick between them through capillary<br />

action. It won't destroy leather, but it will<br />

eventually dry it out by drawing the heavier oils to<br />

the surface, so try not to soak leather things,<br />

though it won't hurt to get WD on leather.<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

I live and work 3 blocks from the beach and have<br />

tried everything. A light (very light) wiping of a lite<br />

lubricant does work but I do several things before<br />

the lubricant.<br />

1) Using a paint brush and a soft cloth (old cloth<br />

baby diapers or old T-shirts work great for this)<br />

dry wipe everything. You have to remove all the<br />

sand, dust and moisture. Compressed air is a great<br />

Page 786


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

help as well, although you'll use a lot of it to do the<br />

job.<br />

2) I open all the equipment and put it under a 500<br />

watt lamp for a day to dry everything out. The lamp<br />

is usually 5 to 8 feet away so the equipment<br />

doesn't get hot - I just want it to get warm to<br />

speed up the evaporation process. Rotate your<br />

equipment every couple of hours to get to all the<br />

moisture.<br />

3) Wipe it down again to get the salts left by the<br />

evaporated water.<br />

Most of the time this is all that is needed to stop<br />

the rust and corrosion. If you prefer then you can<br />

do a light coat of a silicon based product. I haven't<br />

tried it yet, but gun enthusiast purchase silicon<br />

impregnated cloths to wipe down their guns. This<br />

might work well for the exterior parts of your<br />

equipment.<br />

Another thing that helps is to use some sort of<br />

raincover while in the elements. When you are<br />

close to the beach, sand is literally in the air. If the<br />

wind is blowing then sand and moisture collects on<br />

your equipment. A well fitted rain cover helps to<br />

keep the sand and moist air off your equipment.<br />

The key is to remember that the sand and moisture<br />

is literally in the air. If you protect your equipment<br />

Page 787


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

by protecting it from the wind you've solved many<br />

of your problems.<br />

An interesting story - I was shooting at a dolphin<br />

tank one day and noticed that the dolphins always<br />

fell in one or two spots. I carefully positioned my<br />

camera where the splash wouldn't get me and<br />

asked the trainer to motion for the dolphins to<br />

jump. I witnessed a great shot just before the tidal<br />

wave created by the falling dolphin engulfed me<br />

and my video camera. The camera instantly shorted<br />

out. I quickly carried the camera to my engineer<br />

who opened it up, and put it under a 500 watt<br />

tungsten light for 5 or 6 hours - constantly<br />

rotating it. Afterwards, he wiped it down to remove<br />

the "salts" and turned it on. The camera worked<br />

flawlessly for several years until it was replaced.<br />

JR Allen<br />

Another product to try is Silikroil from Kano<br />

Laboratories, 1000 S. Thompson Lane, Nashville,<br />

TN, 37211. They only sell by mail order.<br />

It's far better than WD-40 for loosening things that<br />

are stuck or corroded, and for protecting surfaces<br />

temporarily from moisture. Its downside is that it<br />

Page 788


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

gets gummy if left in place too long, say a year or<br />

more. Also smells more like an aftershave.<br />

-- J.S.<br />

Aluminum and aluminium are both wonderful<br />

substances. One of the things that is wonderful<br />

about aluminum is that when it oxidises a skin of<br />

aluminum oxide forms over the surface of the<br />

aluminum which seals it from further oxidation,<br />

and this aluminum oxide coating is actually harder<br />

than bare aluminum. That is one reason why one<br />

finds aluminum in use in a lot of water-intensive<br />

exterior applications. The white discolorations and<br />

slight powdery deposits are an unfortunate<br />

manifestation of this effect, which can be<br />

exacerbated by pollutants in the air much more<br />

than by humidity. You can polish the aluminum,<br />

thereby exposing bare metal again, but since the<br />

bare metal is softer it will reoccur. If you are<br />

building new cases, you can have the parts<br />

anodized first, a process which hardens the surface<br />

electrochemically and colors it as well, if you wish.<br />

This cannot be done with assembled cases,<br />

however. As the owner of thousands of pounds of<br />

aluminum and steel lighting and grip equipt, as<br />

Page 789


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

well as a garage of motorcycles with un-coated<br />

aluminum motors and wheels, I have too much<br />

experience with this oxidation. (By the way, gaffers<br />

who might want to be involved in a New York<br />

based lighting company may email me privately, as<br />

can west-coasters who might be looking for a BMW<br />

motorcycle)<br />

There is a product called either Ever-Brite or Nevr-<br />

Dull, I can never remember which, that is sold in<br />

many hardware and auto stores and all truck stops<br />

and consists of cotton batting impregnated with<br />

metal polish. It is great for chrome and aluminum<br />

because it does not leave too much liquid on the<br />

aluminum. For sprucing up the case edges, I would<br />

just use some 4/0 (that is 0000) steel wool to rub<br />

it till it shines. Many people will recommend the<br />

3m plastic scrubbing pads, but even and therefore<br />

a bit coarser.<br />

You can actually put car wax or carnuba wax or<br />

Butcher's wax on the case edges after they are<br />

buffed and that will help keep the corrosion away a<br />

bit longer, but there is enough material there that a<br />

little steel wool now and again won't risk your<br />

weakening the cases and will give you a chance to<br />

check for loose corner hardware or rivets before<br />

Page 790


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

they hang up on some conveyor belt in Nepal,<br />

spilling you precious cargo to the winds.<br />

Good luck<br />

Mark Weingarter<br />

I’m catching up on mail so excuse my late entry<br />

here- but I’ve heard comments on this thread<br />

about desilica packs ( I squirrel them away too) but<br />

check it out-<br />

RICE WORKS JUST AS WELL<br />

No kidding. that’s why they put it in salt shakers-<br />

absorb the moisture. For interior camera placement<br />

just put some in a tea bag or coffee filter with a<br />

rubber band.<br />

whatever the case, its cheap, all natural and camera<br />

friendly.<br />

Caleb "jasmine" Crosby,<br />

Page 791


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

TV Screens<br />

Do spot meters have a problem metering TV<br />

screens? Is there an exposure compensation I<br />

should perform. I've been told that because a<br />

screen is scanned that it will read different that a<br />

continuous source.<br />

Any words of wisdom?<br />

Michael Tien<br />

In my experience the spotmeter reads 1/2 to 1<br />

stop lower than the film actually responds. Don't<br />

know of a formula, but I bet someone here does.<br />

HEDJr<br />

Spot meters ruined more film than any other<br />

photographic investment that I've ever made. They<br />

Page 792


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

give very precise readings of the tiny dot they<br />

measure. I produced (read: ruined) lots of film with<br />

a precision exposed tiny portion of the scene this<br />

way. I know only use my spot for measuring the<br />

contrast of a given scene from brightest to darkest<br />

and not for any "overall" exposure information.<br />

You may be experiencing the same with your spot<br />

reading of a particular portion of the tv screen you<br />

measure. The "technique" I use for still<br />

photography is to take an "ambient" reading with<br />

the ball right up touching the screen on the spot<br />

with a middle tone.. With my Minolta Flashmeter III<br />

this seems to work fine depending on the content<br />

displayed on the screen at the time of the reading<br />

and the content on the screen when I shoot.<br />

Most spot meters (as well as other meters) have a<br />

weakness for excessive blue(or lack or red), such<br />

as a tv screen. "Silicon blue cells" were supposed to<br />

cure this problem, but haven't in my experience.<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

Theo Van de Sande, ASC taught me this:<br />

Page 793


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Use an old spring-loaded (analog) Spectra Pro with<br />

the reflective light disc on the meter..place it right<br />

on the monitor, hopefully a close-up with skin<br />

tones..be sure and use the little dots and not the<br />

arrows for your calculations. It works.....it really<br />

does!<br />

You still must adjust the color for tungsten film, an<br />

81A viewing glass helps.<br />

Wayne Kennan, ASC<br />

Many cameramen use the Minolta digital spot<br />

meter for most things, but have learned that it has<br />

a weakness when reading TV screens because of<br />

the nature of the moving bright spot target of the<br />

TV screen's scanning, combined with the Minolta's<br />

instantaneous measurement. It leads to misleading<br />

readings.<br />

Most cameramen on the forum agreed that the<br />

Pentax digital meter seems to "integrate" over a<br />

longer period of time and therefore averages the<br />

exposure better of TV screens.<br />

Page 794


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

My recommendation is to use a manual exposure<br />

camera to shoot B&W Polaroid 667 film of the<br />

overall scene with the subject TV included in the<br />

test still picture. Use a shutter speed of 1/60th or<br />

slower to be sure to photograph the entire scanned<br />

image on the TV screen. You will be surprised how<br />

*dim* you need to set the TV so it won’t look<br />

washed out on the film later. For filming, it turns<br />

out being set dimmer than most people would set<br />

it up to view it in a TV viewing situation in you<br />

home or office. You can't trust your eye, trust the<br />

Polaroid’s, they do not lie, your eye can be fooled.<br />

Also another pitfall is you need to light your scene<br />

with daylight colored light (HMI) and put an 85<br />

filter on the camera if you are using tungsten<br />

balanced film. Or light with tungsten and filter the<br />

TV screen with a piece of 85 plastic in front. Many<br />

larger TV's have a piece of clear glass in the front<br />

of the cabinet, you replace that.<br />

Or a third alternative is to have the video taped<br />

image itself shifted in the orange direction before<br />

you shoot film. This works if the video images are<br />

incidental, but I wouldn't use this technique if the<br />

video images are important, like a commercial for<br />

TV's!<br />

Page 795


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

On a similar subject, it appears the Pentax does a<br />

better job of properly reading greenscreens and<br />

bluescreens than the Minolta does. I keep a Pentax<br />

around and only bring it out when I am doing TV<br />

screens or green/blue matting.<br />

Bill Bennett<br />

I've found wildly differing readings from spot<br />

meters on TV screens, I've tried the Minolta, the<br />

Pentax Digital & the Sekonic L778, they are all out<br />

to some degree, the Pentax seems to be the most<br />

reliable in this situation.<br />

I always try to use a Polaroid to check this.<br />

If you're stuck then when I was a kid I found that<br />

1/15 at f4 with 100 ISO was right for stills, I've<br />

used it as a basis for the last 30 odd years and it<br />

seems to work!<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Page 796


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I simply find the area that is closest to 18% grey<br />

(may be an actual playback of a grey card), then I<br />

take a reading with my spot meter and I<br />

underexpose it by an amount between a third and<br />

0ne stop. If you're really in a hurry, just find the<br />

brightest spot of the actual image you're filming<br />

and expose for 18% with your spot meter; it works<br />

fine!<br />

Do a test before shooting and you can't go wrong.<br />

If you don't have time for a test, roll a 5 feet test<br />

(in stop increments) off the reel you're using, so<br />

you will have a reference next time.<br />

Norayr Kasper<br />

In my experience, yes and yes to all the responses.<br />

A lot of spot meters will be confused by the<br />

scanning process of the TV screen, and don't<br />

"integrate" well. Remember (here we go again) the<br />

vertical blanking interval actually turns off the<br />

display for the next retrace, much like an electronic<br />

Page 797


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

version of the shutter in a projector blocking the<br />

light during pull-down.<br />

Result? The video screen is blank, or "black" some<br />

of the time. Faster than your eye can interpret.<br />

These dark periods confuse the meter, it tells you<br />

to open up to compensate. End result is<br />

overexposure... usually something like 2/3 of a<br />

stop.<br />

Jim Furrer<br />

If you are running your own source material<br />

through the tv monitor and you have the luxury of<br />

setting up to bars, I usually read the green band<br />

(this correlates pretty well with 18%) with the<br />

Pentax and open 2/3-1 stop. Alternate method,<br />

read white and expose the picture Zoned between<br />

VI & VII.<br />

Several years ago Ken Zunder told me his old<br />

Model M Minolta Spot read TV’s and computer<br />

screens OK, but his newer Model F always seemed<br />

to fail him . . . there must be an integration<br />

differential between the two models . . . he was the<br />

Page 798


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

monitor king while shooting the first season of<br />

Seaquest.<br />

I've always been able to meter TV screens fairly<br />

accurately with a spotmeter (Pentax Spot V; haven't<br />

tried my Spotmeter F on a TV screen yet.) I also<br />

measure color temperature by reading random<br />

static off the screen with a color meter. It works<br />

quite well.<br />

Art Adams<br />

I just photographed some insert shots of a tv.<br />

screen playing back some videotape footage on<br />

16mm at 29.97 using 320 tungsten stock with an<br />

85. I simply grabbed a 35mm still camera, set the<br />

shutter speed to 1/60th, the film speed to 200,<br />

meter to center-weighted average mode and<br />

measured the on-screen image. I then worked the<br />

brightness of the on-screen image until I achieved<br />

the desired stop. All is well.<br />

Page 799


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Michael Siegel<br />

I shot a commercial including lots of TV screens<br />

two years ago using 500 ASA Fuji stock. Before<br />

shooting I adjusted the TV's "picture" pots to<br />

obtain low contrast on the screen. I used my digital<br />

Pentax spotmeter and slightly (2/3 f-stop)<br />

underexposed the screens than the reading. The<br />

result was OK. This method was also mentioned in<br />

the manual of the Pentax spotmeter so I didn't<br />

make an invention.<br />

Dogan Sariguzel<br />

I always wondered why the monitors looked 'hot'<br />

first few times I tried to meter them. I gravitated to<br />

a system where I intuitively turned _down_ the<br />

brightness control to a point where I thought they<br />

would look right; that seemed to work. Later I ran<br />

Page 800


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

into a situation where I had to balance an odd<br />

group of monitors and came up with my current<br />

system.<br />

First I choose a specific video image (whole screen)<br />

that I will meter on. I try to pick something that is<br />

mostly Zone 5. At the very least I try to find a shot<br />

with an _average_ brightness over the entire frame.<br />

Obviously, a c/u of a grey card properly transferred<br />

would be the best. Next is the most important part:<br />

I back up far enough that the set fits _entirely_ into<br />

the target circle of the meter. Now, I realise that<br />

this may not be possible. But, if it is, and you try<br />

meter ing from close and far you'll see what I'm<br />

talking about. The difference is usually about 1/2<br />

or 2/3 of a stop, or even more.<br />

I always find the tricky part is choosing the frame<br />

to meter on in absence of a full field grey chart. If I<br />

have time, I usually get a grey card, lit to key, close<br />

to the set as seen from the camera so I can make<br />

last minute adjustments based on that. Usually, I<br />

feel that I should turn down the brightness on the<br />

monitor. I have never had a producer say, "Gee,<br />

that TV looks dark." They seem to command a<br />

screen presence that doesn’t always require a full<br />

textbook (as I f) exposure.<br />

Page 801


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Also, Art Adams mentioned using video noise for a<br />

Kelvin reading and I think that works well; you can<br />

use the same noise as a Zone 6 (maybe 6.5)<br />

reading.<br />

David Perrault<br />

We seem to be reaching a consensus here. Had a<br />

chance to absorb all these postings, and tried to<br />

put them into effect on my 35mm shoot yesterday<br />

(3/18/97). In this case, a 26" commercial grade "TV<br />

set" was being fed an electronic blue signal, so that<br />

in post-production footage could be inserted via<br />

an Ultimatte-type key on a Henry. Attended the<br />

transfer this morning (3/19) and the colorist said<br />

the TV screen seen in the footage was "as good as<br />

he could hope for" in terms of exposure and<br />

saturation. No Power Windows required! So I guess<br />

it all worked.<br />

Details: Arriflex 535A camera, shooting Kodak '79.<br />

I rated it at a 400 speed (personal preference),<br />

process normal. No filtration. Frame rate was 29.97<br />

to sync to TV screen. Rest of the set lit to an F4<br />

Page 802


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

incident, as metered with both a Spectra (my<br />

gaffer's) and a CineMeter II (mine). Metered the TV<br />

screen with my Minolta Spotmeter F, ASA 400, set<br />

at 1/60th second, still rate (1/2 the frame rate,<br />

180 degree shutter).<br />

Adjusted contrast & brightnes s on screen until spot<br />

meter reading off the blue from the TV was 2.8<br />

1/3. Based on previous posts, I assumed the red<br />

and green cells in the meter were getting little or<br />

nothing, and therefore the meter was under -<br />

reporting. Allowed additional 1/3 stop for "no red"<br />

and another 1/3 stop for "no green" and we were<br />

at F4.0, the desired stop.<br />

THEN, had the video tech switch the signal feeding<br />

the set from blue to white (presence of all colors).<br />

Spot meter reported the exposure as F4.0... but<br />

remember, that's to achieve an 18% grey card<br />

value, and if we were reading skin tone, we'd be<br />

opening up 1/2 to 1 full stop, right? But, on the<br />

other hand, I remembered the suggestion posted<br />

here, to take the electronic blanking interval into<br />

effect (seems to confuse the Minolta meters, which<br />

don't "integrate" the chopped source from a TV set<br />

well) I decided the two factors would cancel each<br />

other out, and I accepted the F4.0 reading as<br />

desirable and shot the scene.<br />

Page 803


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

No complaints, the colorist said it was fine, the<br />

Henry artist said the blue-screen matted out like a<br />

charm. Client was pleased, booked another job<br />

with me. Thanks to all here for their input, that's<br />

what's great about this forum!<br />

Jim Furrer<br />

Page 804


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Ultra High Speeds<br />

Hi,<br />

Any one have any idea about at what<br />

frame rates you start to notice the 60 hertz of<br />

tungsten lights, or if it happens. I spoke to a friend<br />

who told me when shooting at 10,000 F.P.S. he saw<br />

the lights dim and brighten during the shot, he was<br />

using tungsten. I've only done one test so far, at<br />

3,000 F.P.S. with lights, and I didn't see the effect<br />

he described. However it is possible that on my<br />

test the lights were on different legs, so they would<br />

be complementing each other. Strobes are not an<br />

option, I wish shooting outside were. Does any one<br />

know about this phenomena, or at 3,000 F.P.S. do I<br />

not have to worry.<br />

Thanks<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

While this is just a guess, I would think that 10k<br />

and 20k lamps are very unlikely to show any<br />

Page 805


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

output variation over such short intervals of<br />

time...but you could do the 'easy' thing to prevent<br />

any fluctuation due to ac by renting a DC generator<br />

and running your tungsten lights on DC...no<br />

fluctuation from power and quieter to<br />

boot...though the camera will be anything but<br />

quiet. You might also consider using Xenon lights<br />

as they are DC continuous arc sources.<br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

I do not think it is possible to notice the flicker of<br />

tungsten lights at any frame rate, since the<br />

variation in flicker is so slight. It would not be a<br />

function of frame rate, but of the viewer's<br />

sensitivity to such a slight variation. Perhaps that<br />

variation might increase if the lights were dimmed<br />

down ? ...but I doubt that.<br />

Perhaps it was the result of uneven development in<br />

the Lab ? ...but that tends to look a bit splotchy.<br />

(Are we certain that these were tungsten units and<br />

not electronic ballast HMI's ?)<br />

Page 806


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mark<br />

I have seen the described fluctuations at slower<br />

(relatively) frame rates around 3 to 500 fps. After<br />

talking to those in the know (not those who won't<br />

admit it) we determined it was the camera that was<br />

wavering in exposure. While I prefer not to dis their<br />

equipment as I like it and use it all the time, the<br />

manufacturer's name rhymes with an extinct bird<br />

and an old hair treatment.<br />

Eric (too wimpy to just say it) Swenson<br />

Mark, I don't know about your experience, but I can<br />

point a Cine Check at a 60-watt house bulb and<br />

read the mains frequency. It would not surprise<br />

me that this pulsing could be caught on film,<br />

assuming the frame rate was high enough.<br />

Page 807


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jim Furrer<br />

Yes, Steven you will be able to see 60Hz<br />

fluctuations over 2500-5000 fps if my memory<br />

serves me right. But the most determining factor is<br />

the size of the tungsten source. Tungsten pars or<br />

small wattage lamps will be seen but 5k's or 10K's<br />

won't due to the nature of the filament size. They<br />

simply take longer to respond to the fluctuations.<br />

Think of a 10K quickly doused on a dimmer<br />

compared to an inky. There's always DC!<br />

Hope this helps.<br />

Regards,<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Definitely can be seen with small filament lamps at<br />

high fps over 2500.<br />

Regards,<br />

Page 808


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Hmmm, I've never heard of smaller filament lamps<br />

exhibiting a higher amplitude difference than<br />

larger ones...not enough of a difference to matter<br />

anyways. But I'll take your word for it.<br />

I must say that I worked on many Photosonics<br />

shoots (I was a Photosonics Camera Assistant in<br />

New York) and never witnessed this. Then again,<br />

at 2,500 to 3,000 fps we usually required 5 & 10K's<br />

to expose our shots. The only flicker that I<br />

witnessed were one of three heads on some brand<br />

new flicker-free HMI's. Bad ballast. Needed a<br />

reshoot.<br />

Mark<br />

The 60 hz frequency fluctuation is definitely there,<br />

but the amplitude difference is quite small. If it<br />

Page 809


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

were large (as with a magnetic ballast HMI), you'd<br />

notice it even if you shot non-crystal at lower<br />

frame-rates. For the sake of clarity, lets say that<br />

the (rather long) sustain and decay of a "flickering"<br />

& glowing tungsten filament were to approach a 5<br />

% difference in amplitude, then this would be<br />

barely noticeable on film. We can notice extremely<br />

small exposure shifts when they happen very<br />

quickly, but not when you have, say, less than<br />

1/10th of a stop shift that is spread-out in slow-<br />

mo over a couple of seconds. I have never<br />

witnessed such a problem (we got our cameras up<br />

to 3,000 fps with a special Electronic Speed<br />

Control)...but Jim Sofranko says that he has<br />

definitely seen this exposure fluctuation on smaller<br />

tungsten fixtures. I suppose it's better to run your<br />

lights on DC or 3 different phases...or it's time to<br />

shoot high-fps shots in the sun only ! :-)<br />

Mark "watch out for sunspots" DP<br />

I remember that time in NY and yes, 5K and 10K's<br />

were the lights of preference. But a few of the<br />

Page 810


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

directors at the tabletop houses in the mid to late<br />

eighties started to use VNS tungsten pars for high<br />

speed Photosonics and macro work where depth of<br />

field was important. Much more bang for the<br />

amps. The tabletop gaffers during that time<br />

(myself included) picked up on this and introduced<br />

the idea to many director cameramen. That was<br />

when I noticed the sine wave problem with the very<br />

responsive par lamps compared to the slower,<br />

large filament 5K and 10K's.<br />

BTW-On a similar note a friend who is a tabletop<br />

gaffer in NY recently had a flicker problem<br />

shooting Photosonics with flicker free HMI's. The<br />

problem was attributed to the lamp/age amplitude<br />

dilemma that the B&S meter can detect. Now that<br />

Photosonics recognizes the problem perhaps they<br />

should just include the meter with the camera as<br />

Bill Bennett indicated they did for his shoot. It's an<br />

expensive item that gaffers always have a hard<br />

time in getting a rental. I know that Unilux sends<br />

out a Minolta Flashmeter 111 with their system.<br />

Regards,<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

Page 811


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I had an experience at 300fps, where a practical<br />

globe in the frame flickered. It was run off a<br />

generator, and don't it wasn't on a dimmer (but<br />

now that I think about it I can't remember for<br />

certain!) It was puzzling because nothing the<br />

gaffer or I could think of really made it even seem<br />

possible. The globe was in the shot, none of the<br />

other lights illuminating the set showed any<br />

irregularity. But, the flicker was an odd one and so<br />

slight that I even have the shot on my reel and<br />

nobody even notices.<br />

My recommendation would be to test or keep<br />

sources out of the shot, or run DC on that light.<br />

Harry Dawson<br />

This seems pretty reasonable: that the flicker<br />

would be fairly subtle.<br />

Now I'm starting to wonder whether some of our<br />

Photosonics tabletops were done 3-phase with 3<br />

Page 812


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

lights into a piece of diffusion. I know they weren't<br />

DC.<br />

I do recall a DP at Ampersand (not Elbert Budin, but<br />

the other, younger guy with the dark hair...why do<br />

names escape me when I call upon them?) who<br />

liked lighting with tight-lensed tungsten Pars (such<br />

as the 64's). He liked the hot, messy beam of the<br />

older one's with a dead spot near the middle. But I<br />

never remember any flicker problems there<br />

either...200 to 2,500 fps.<br />

But I suppose the newer, smaller filaments can<br />

really be that responsive, eh ? Good to have that<br />

warning.<br />

Mark<br />

Big filaments Vs small filaments as regards high<br />

speed output variation Think of the filament as a<br />

flywheel (ok, ok, have a mind-relaxing beverage of<br />

your choice, and THEN think of the filament as a<br />

flywheel.) The larger filaments take so long to heat<br />

Page 813


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and cool relative to 60Hz power (which produces,<br />

of course, 120 voltage peaks per second) that they<br />

will not exhibit visible variation over the course of<br />

a cycle. Smaller filaments may heat up and cool<br />

down fast enough to be seen on high speed film.<br />

Household bulbs would be amongst the most likely<br />

to show this variation . This is the "evil twin" of the<br />

characteristic of smaller wattage globes that leads<br />

us to use them on flicker boxes for fire effects or<br />

lightning, or wherever we need fast modulation. DC<br />

solves the problem,(it never shuts off) as does<br />

using multiple fixtures into a common piece of<br />

diffusion such that roughly a third of them are<br />

powered by each leg of three phase power. Three<br />

phase power gives you three sine-waves of AC<br />

power offset by 120 degrees from each other so<br />

that at any instant in time, at least two of the legs<br />

are not at 0 volts. Single phase power, even if it<br />

has two hot legs, has two legs of power out of<br />

phase with each other by 180 degrees so that they<br />

are both at zero volts twice per cycle.<br />

Forgive me if I am clarifying things that many<br />

people know; as a career gaffer/VFX nerd, I have<br />

discovered that even many of my brethren in the<br />

electrical world do not really dig the three-phase<br />

Page 814


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

thing, and power generation is not something that<br />

is covered in depth in all cinematography<br />

courses...I mean, that's what your gaffer is for,<br />

anyway.<br />

Mark<br />

(climbing back down from the soap-box)<br />

However since they are 180 degrees out of phase,<br />

wouldn't their fluctuations cancel out? If I used half<br />

of my lights on opposite legs. Perhaps I'd have to<br />

compensate the exposure some, figuring that the<br />

average of the On ( full intensity) and the off ( a<br />

little bit less than full intensity) would yield less<br />

than what my meter ( at this amount of light and<br />

heat now a shrivelled bit of melted plastic) says.<br />

Argggghh, this theoretical stuff. Shooting at such<br />

high frame rates it's almost as if time stops, like<br />

that old Star trek Episode. I like the D.C. Idea, that<br />

seems simplest. Just because I started this thread<br />

I'd like to say thanks to everyone who has waded in<br />

with thoughts, or experiences.<br />

Page 815


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

With an oscilloscope (which is basically a device to<br />

let you see a picture of voltage over time) you can<br />

see in a single cycle of AC that the voltage first<br />

goes positive to 120v. and then goes to negative<br />

120v., passing through zero on the way. You can<br />

tell the difference between +120v and -120v., but<br />

all a filament can tell is that a bunch of electrons<br />

are playing through...not which way they are going.<br />

Since the "zero points" of the cycle are the same for<br />

both legs, the lights will all flicker together. This<br />

overall common fluctuation is the worst case for<br />

having the exposure variation show up on film.<br />

With three phase power, on the other hand, since<br />

the three legs are offset by 120 degrees instead of<br />

180 degrees, the overall difference between<br />

"brightest" and "dimmest" is much less, and<br />

therefore less likely to be perceptible on film.<br />

Remember that the challenge here is not to create<br />

a certain intensity but rather to create a situation<br />

Page 816


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

where that intensity does not change too much<br />

from frame to frame.<br />

You ain't kidding about the melted plastic bit.<br />

On a certain blockbuster about aliens attacking<br />

the earth a couple of years ago, I was charged with<br />

lighting an area of air extending approx. 15 feet<br />

above a nine foot long trough from which we were<br />

generating steam and debris clouds using, among<br />

other things, prima-cord and fullers earth. I used<br />

3 Dino lights (24x1kPAR64) on each side with 5<br />

nine-light Maxi's on a high truss as back-light and<br />

4 maxi's around the front for "soft low-level fill."<br />

Bad day to wear a dark blue shirt.<br />

I got into the killing zone to focus and get<br />

readings, and by the time my welding glass was<br />

getting warm to the touch, the front of my shirt<br />

was getting distinctly hot to the touch. as was my<br />

hair. If I had taken one of my old Spectra Pro's out<br />

there without a 100x slide in it, the needle would<br />

have wrapped around the high stop.<br />

Oh, the things we do for ART!<br />

Page 817


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Mark Weingartner<br />

(a long way from focusing par cans in Central Park<br />

with a Texas license plate)<br />

The two legs of a single phase supply are never<br />

'out of phase with each other' . Rather the polarity<br />

of the supply alternates between them at the the<br />

supply frequency 60Hz for you, 50 for me, and at<br />

the mid-point of this alternation there is no<br />

potential difference(PD) between the two legs. This<br />

is commonly called the 'Zero Crossing Point' The<br />

PD rolls serenely up and down either side of this<br />

point and peaks once 'negatively' and once<br />

'positively' for each cycle, passing the zero<br />

crossing point twice as it goes. If you draw a<br />

representative sine wave with a straight line<br />

throughout its central axis you will see how this<br />

works. The nominal voltage of the supply is the<br />

RMS of this sine, 240v in the UK, but the peak to<br />

peak voltage is almost 280v!<br />

Interestingly, the maximum voltage that you can<br />

actually come into contact with at any given<br />

Page 818


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

moment is the half cycle value; that is 120v for me,<br />

and 55v for you. Which is why US supplies are<br />

inherently much safer than UK one and all your<br />

fittings are of a lighter construction than ours.<br />

Ask your friendly gaffer to explain how the single<br />

phase is extracted from your three phase supply! :-<br />

)<br />

So the upshot is that single phase supplies are at<br />

no volts twice per cycle and its quite possible for<br />

lightweight filaments to cool visibly if you are<br />

shooting fast enough.<br />

Andy Bowman.<br />

Page 819


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Varicon<br />

I'm using a VariCon filter that I got from Clairmont<br />

for the first tim e. I was wondering if any of you<br />

have used this filter and have any suggestions or<br />

comments about it.<br />

I'm looking to use it to desaturate several scenes<br />

I'm about to shoot.<br />

–Marc<br />

Call Arri in NY at 914 353 1400, and ask for them<br />

to send you the Varicon<br />

kit. We have some sample images and other info<br />

on the Varicon.<br />

Cheers,<br />

Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical Representative<br />

Arriflex Corporation; 1646 N. Oakley Ave, Suite #2,<br />

Chicago, IL 60647-5319, USA<br />

Page 820


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I used the Varicon for a couple of commercials last<br />

year and really liked the results we got.<br />

We adjusted them by eye to match, we were using<br />

2 cameras, although we also had the device that<br />

should match them.<br />

I found that I could successfully use a lot more<br />

than I at first thought I could.<br />

We reduced the contrast hugely with the Varicon<br />

and then wound it back in in TK, this gave us more<br />

"cartoon" colours.<br />

The biggest problem was that they get very hot<br />

and have to regularly turned off to cool down.<br />

Really liked them, it was weird to look at the<br />

camera from the subject and see this glowing<br />

front!<br />

Geoff<br />

Page 821


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I'm planning to use either the Panaflasher or a<br />

VariCon for a feature in June so I have been reading<br />

up a little (I also plan to shoot some tests).<br />

The best article was on the original "Colorflex"<br />

device invented by Gerry Turpin for "Young<br />

Winston" - unfortunately, I've misplaced the issue<br />

of "American Cinematographer" that covered it.<br />

A.C., March '73 has a good article on Vilmos<br />

Zsigmond's use of flashing for "the Long Goodbye",<br />

complete with photos.<br />

A.C., March '74 mentions flashing briefly in<br />

conjunction with "Nickel Ride", shot by Jordon<br />

Cronenweth.<br />

A.C., Nov. '78 covers the use of the Lightflex for<br />

"The Wiz", including discussion on color flashing<br />

combined with diffusion filters.<br />

A.C., Feb. '86 has an excellent article by Woody<br />

Omens about using the Lightflex to obtain a<br />

painterly period look for a TV movie, "Evergreen".<br />

Definitely read that one...<br />

Page 822


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

A.C., July '90 has an article by Isadore Mankofsky<br />

comparing the Panaflasher to the VariCon (first<br />

design).<br />

And finally, "International Photographer", Nov. '97,<br />

has a technical article by Mark Woods about the<br />

Panaflasher and VariCon.<br />

The old A.C. article about "Dune" is not really worth<br />

reading, although the film itself has some excellent<br />

use of the Lightflex - there is finally a new<br />

widescreen transfer on laserdisc that looks pretty<br />

good.<br />

I'm sure Arriflex can send so some pretty good<br />

material. I few weeks ago I asked Isadore<br />

Mankovsky about the differences between the<br />

Panaflasher and the VariCon - he said that he<br />

preferred the VariCon slightly but said that because<br />

it uses an UltraCon filter for its glass, it does<br />

slightly soften the image compared to a<br />

Panaflasher.<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 823


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

David Mullen is clearly the best researcher here on<br />

the CML! I am always<br />

impressed with what he digs up!<br />

So the glass in a Varicon is an UltraCon? What<br />

grade? Interesting!<br />

Jeff "flash me" Kreines<br />

Having never used the Varicon system, can<br />

someone explain how it works?<br />

Thanks,<br />

Jim S.<br />

• The biggest problem was that they get<br />

very hot and have to regularly<br />

>turned off to cool down.<br />

Page 824


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

><br />

Indeed! The best solution for the overheating<br />

(learnt from a DP friend John Berrie csc) is to put it<br />

on when they call "roll camera" and off when the<br />

director says "cut". It usually takes some 3 or 4<br />

days for the AC to get used to this.<br />

Very simple to use: The Varicon (filter+lamp<br />

housing) is inserted into a matte-box like the<br />

MD14. It is attached with a power cable to the<br />

ballast which you'll have to place near the camera<br />

(usually not so convenient for the operator). The<br />

ballast has two settings, high mode and low mode.<br />

If the setting is wrong, it will look too hot or too<br />

faint. Then you power it through an external<br />

battery (usually same as the one powering the<br />

camera). The on/off s witch runs between the<br />

ballast and the Varicon which we velcro it next to<br />

the on/off switch of the camera so the AC will<br />

run/stop them together to avoid overheating. Next<br />

comes the intensity dial. When you turn the dial, a<br />

set of rectangular shutters open or close inside the<br />

lamp housing. There are numbers on the dial for<br />

reference, but I wouldn't trust them much because<br />

the mechanics between the shutters and the dial is<br />

Page 825


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

not quite accurate. Finally, there is a little<br />

rectangular slot for color correction gels situated<br />

between the lamp housing and the optical glass.<br />

The clear optical glass has tiny particles inside to<br />

ensure uniformity of brightness throughout.<br />

The best way of knowing what it does to your<br />

image is obviously to test for desired effect. After a<br />

while, you'll just do it by eye, and almost always<br />

will look fine. It is important to know that one<br />

setting of the dial doesn't work for all shots (here<br />

lies the difference between fogging the film and<br />

using Varicon). You should reset that dial every<br />

time you have a different lighting setup. Basically,<br />

the Varicon acts on the blacks in the image while<br />

the bright areas remain mostly unaffected. You can<br />

also experiment with adding color gels in the slot.<br />

One trick that helps me a lot is to judge the desired<br />

intensity by looking into the viewfinder at a very<br />

black object in the dark areas of the image.<br />

That is all I can remember now. Hope this helps.<br />

Norayr<br />

Page 826


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

...One trick that helps me a lot is to judge the<br />

desired intensity by looking into the viewfinder at a<br />

very black object in the dark areas of the image...<br />

Very helpful explanation. Never used it but have<br />

heard about this system or one like it for years. A<br />

few questions though. Do you change the intensity<br />

based on lens length as well as on lighting? I know<br />

that I would tend to go with a lighter diffusion on a<br />

longer lens and vice versa. Is the same true with<br />

the Varicon?<br />

Also does the effect seem very apparent and milk<br />

out the blacks too much? Or can it be subtle? The<br />

color idea seems interesting. And is there anything<br />

similar is post for this effect?<br />

Regards,<br />

Jim S.<br />

> Do you change the intensity based on lens<br />

length as well as on lighting? I >know that I would<br />

tend to go with a lighter diffusion on a longer lens<br />

Page 827


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

and >vice versa.<br />

>Is the same true with the Varicon?<br />

In general, yes, the focal length and contrast ratio<br />

are big factors. It doesn't make much sense to use<br />

it where you have little or no contrast. It can also<br />

cause softening or flaring with very wide lenses<br />

where it may collect uncontrolled light coming<br />

from brightly lit scenes, skylight, windows, etc. It's<br />

mostly useful in low lighting situations like night<br />

shoots, or to fill in the shadows when the sun is<br />

overhead, or to bring up the foliage of dark trees,<br />

etc. It basically acts like a fill light. It gives<br />

definition to blacks where you could swear your<br />

meter read "E". On the other hand, I've seen an<br />

impressive shot John Berrie did where he recreated<br />

an Arctic snow blizzard during a sunny winter day<br />

here in the townships. He used wind machine,<br />

some snow powder, and of course the Varicon to<br />

flatten the contrast drastically. He loved it so much<br />

that he bought one. BTW, it is a bit overpriced.<br />

As I mentioned above, the Varicon acts like any<br />

additional frontal element. Beside softening the<br />

image a tiny bit and collecting light from the<br />

environment, it also creates double shadows when<br />

Page 828


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

you shoot against practicals, bright windows, etc.<br />

So if you're shooting in a situation where there is<br />

not much contrast, ask yourself if the Varicon is<br />

really needed?<br />

> Also does the effect seem very apparent and<br />

milk out the blacks too much?<br />

> Or can it be subtle?<br />

Varicon can be very subtle; if you find it is not<br />

subtle enough for your desired look, just add an<br />

ND .6 or .9 inside the gel slot. Then you'll have<br />

more control on intensity. Yes, you can easily get<br />

milky blacks if you exaggerate.<br />

> The color idea seems interesting. And is there<br />

> anything similar is post for this effect?<br />

Anything you add to the gel-slot will show up in<br />

the blacks. Any color gel will more or less act like a<br />

filter except that it mostly effects the blacks. In<br />

post you can do almost anything, but it is not the<br />

same as correcting your image in camera.<br />

Norayr<br />

Page 829


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Page 830


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

White Backgrounds<br />

"Hello All,<br />

A shoot coming up calls for talent in front of a<br />

completely white back drop. The frame will start<br />

from below the talent's feet to above their head.<br />

The director wants the white to be completely<br />

blown out while properly exposed on the talent.<br />

Not a problem as there will be enough separation<br />

from the back drop... EXCEPT, the talent's feet.<br />

The director also does NOT want to blue or green<br />

screen the shoot and matte the talent against the<br />

white. Sigh...<br />

Because the frame will be wider than full frame, the<br />

actor will be standing on the white drop. The<br />

question is:<br />

How do I get the white below, and immediately<br />

around the talent's feet to blow out while not overexposing<br />

the talent? I'm thinking FLAT BLACK<br />

SHOES for the talent and lots'a flags.<br />

Any and all pointers will be GREATLY appreciated.<br />

Page 831


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Rick Gibbs<br />

It seems to me that a lot of the success of this shot<br />

depends on how white/reflective your background<br />

is. There are 12' width of both white and ""bright<br />

white"" paper drops. Caution in shooting with the<br />

""bright white"" as it has ""whiteners"" in them<br />

(phosphorus, I think) and they can iridesce a very<br />

light pale blue, but they really are brighter.<br />

I think the key to making this shot a lot easier is to<br />

keep the talents clothes somewhat darker than<br />

neutral-grey toned. Creating the differential<br />

between the reflectivity of the background and the<br />

talent would be easiest. If you are able to do that,<br />

your flagging solution, which carries it's own set of<br />

troubles, will be unnecessary.<br />

Cliff Hancuff<br />

Page 832


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

My first thought would be to start with a glass<br />

topped riser to support the actor's weight, then<br />

hang a translucent white backing material --<br />

perhaps some kind of cloth, and drape it over the<br />

riser, to produce a seamless white region around<br />

him. You could then light the white from behind<br />

and underneath, and use light from the front only<br />

to model the talent as you want.<br />

-- J.S.<br />

I assume that your intention isn't really to ""blow<br />

out"" the white but rather to create featureless<br />

white limbo with no detail or horizon. Check out<br />

Lucas' movie THX-1138. There are several long<br />

scenes with characters lost in white limbo (wearing<br />

white clothes too!). The trick is more in keeping<br />

the white set clean physically. I say build a<br />

seamless white space, fill it with light, expose for<br />

the actor's face and let white be white. –<br />

Terry<br />

Page 833


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

The easy solution to your director's requirements is<br />

to shoot using the 3M product used for front<br />

projection (sorry I forget the actual name of the<br />

product) as a backdrop, running from behind the<br />

actor forward and under his/her feet. Bounce any<br />

small source from a half silvered mirror placed in<br />

front of the camera lens (as in front projection) and<br />

you will immediately have a blown out white<br />

background. I have used this method most<br />

successfully shooting 'space people' whose<br />

costume is made out of the same material. It<br />

doesn't matter what angle the camera looks at the<br />

material as it will always reflect directly back to the<br />

centred light source.<br />

David Wakeley ACS<br />

The 3M material (I forget the name as well) works<br />

very well, I've even used it for green screen.<br />

However, it may not be the most practical if the<br />

Page 834


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

shoot is for Telecine. A white cyc, evenly lit, can be<br />

pumped up in the TK by raising the white levels<br />

without too much problem and cause them to blow<br />

out. Just watch for shadows and unevenness.<br />

Wardrobe with dark shoes and pants helps<br />

tremendously for the floor problem allowing you to<br />

light the floor brightly.<br />

BTW- Recently I've seen many people light white<br />

cycs with overhead spacelights and get very even<br />

results. I've always used the old method of<br />

skypans and silks but this other method looks very<br />

appealing and much easier. What methods do you<br />

all like to use for this tedious task?<br />

Jim Sofranko<br />

It's Scotchlite (light).<br />

Eric Swenson<br />

Page 835


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

I would recommend some rules to follow:<br />

OVERLIGHT the white cyc. Put your first space light<br />

on the 'edge' of the cyc. Put your last light on the<br />

opposite edge of the cyc. This may seem like you<br />

are wasting 'horse power', but this will eliminate<br />

most of the 'center hot spot' you will get if you<br />

don't overlight. For a 40' wide stage I use about 18<br />

6K space lights.<br />

USE PRIME LENSES. Zooms will give your vignetted<br />

edges (subtle as they are.... they will creep up in<br />

telecine). If will be difficult to match the whites<br />

from one mm to the next mm unless you use<br />

primes.<br />

USE REFLECTIVE METER My whites work best when<br />

they are 31/2 stops over lens exposure.<br />

NEGATIVE YOUR FOREGROUND ACTOR Use plenty<br />

of black to remove light wrap from the actor. Use<br />

overheads to pull the intensity down.<br />

USE FLAT DISC- For your exposure, use a flat disk<br />

on your incident meter and set a stop. Then use<br />

your reflective meter to read your whites.<br />

Page 836


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

USE OLD WHITE SEAMLESS to cover the floors while<br />

you are working. Roll it up to shoot.<br />

Will this on film or tape??? For telecine to be viewed<br />

on TV for theatrical???<br />

On film for TV. I did this once for a music video.<br />

20 x 20 silk with 10 or 12 2k soft light overhead<br />

and some bounce in front and as back light and<br />

then whiten the the few slightly darker spots on<br />

the floor in transfer.<br />

On video if using a 600 or 700 use the ""knee""<br />

feature (which is usually for un-clipping really hot<br />

areas) in reverse. I others words everything above<br />

a certain level will wash out with no detail. Did this<br />

on clip too.<br />

There are probably many other ways but those are<br />

two I have used before.<br />

Good luck<br />

Daniel Villeneuve, csc<br />

Page 837


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Women (close-ups & lighting)<br />

Here are a few of my prime considerations (aside<br />

from "how much time do I have to light this and<br />

still make the day?") in these cases:<br />

1. How far up the food chain is she?<br />

a. The exec. producer?<br />

b. A "name" that the producer cast to get investors?<br />

2. How well (excuse me here) "connected" is she to<br />

the producer?<br />

3. How pleasant to work with is she? (I have<br />

"monster" lit a few<br />

"Monsters" on occasion.<br />

Jerry (limited snideness day, are you celebrating?)<br />

Wolfe<br />

Page 838


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

This brings up a whole new topic - how far should<br />

one go in "glamourizing" a woman's close-up? I<br />

shoot a lot of thrillers and dramas and often use a<br />

certain amount of shadows & contrast on a closeup.<br />

Some actresses see that their key light is<br />

coming from the side and wonder how they are<br />

going to look on film.<br />

The sad truth is that most (not all) women look<br />

good with a flat, frontal key light - sometimes soft,<br />

sometimes hard. Look at most head shots that<br />

actresses carry around - they all look like they have<br />

no nose, only two eyes and a smile. But frontal<br />

lighting can be so dramatically boring!<br />

Whenever I have to light a woman that way (when<br />

she really needs my help) I try to break up the key<br />

a little by shadowing her neck or forehead - or by<br />

using a very hot backlight and an underexposed<br />

frontal key light.<br />

Twice I've worked with an actress whose features<br />

were so delicate (and her face was so round - not<br />

fat - just round) that side-lighting actually helped<br />

Page 839


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

her look good by giving her face some structure. If<br />

you lit her face flatly, she looked like a lightbulb.<br />

Most actresses that I have worked with have not<br />

been a problem,<br />

understanding that the lighting should support the<br />

drama of the scene - but occasionally, I have had a<br />

make-up person question my lighting because I<br />

wasn't using flat lighting to wash out some<br />

wrinkles or something.<br />

There is usually a happy medium where the<br />

lighting can look good and dramatically correct and<br />

the actress looks good as well - but sometimes I<br />

get asked to "cross the line" and glamourize a<br />

close-up beyond what is correct for the scene.<br />

I actually like old-fashioned glamour lighting (like<br />

Von Sternberg's work with Marlene Deitrich) but I<br />

rarely find it appropriate to the project that I'm on.<br />

Anyone else had this issue come up on a shoot?<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 840


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Yeah. Certainly have had how a woman will look on<br />

screen come up on a shoot. Working with a rather<br />

well known television actress in her late forties on<br />

an independent feature I ran into a puzzling<br />

problem. A large majority of the film was to take<br />

place in long, unbroken steadi-cam shots (five to<br />

ten minute chunks). I was stuck with practical and<br />

overhead lighting -- plus, the director wanted a<br />

very noir, high contrast look.<br />

The actress came to me the first day and sat down<br />

with me and asked, with a very worried look on her<br />

face - "How are you going to light me?" I made the<br />

solution to walk an electrician with a 2x4 Kino with<br />

250 and ND.6 across the doors near the camera<br />

lens to help "flatten-out" her shots, but it was a<br />

hell of a dilemma.<br />

I think, when dealing with women and hard-light<br />

Sante D'Orazio is the current champion -- Take a<br />

look at any Victoria Secret catalogue, or he shoots<br />

for Vogue, Cosmo and others. His use of hard light<br />

on women is very reminiscent of 40's kind of style,<br />

Page 841


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

with a more delicate modern color touch. Nice<br />

stuff.<br />

I had a similar conversation recently in reference to<br />

screenplays where women are often described as<br />

"beautiful." I tend to agree with the trend --<br />

audiences don't normally go to see average or<br />

unsightly people on the screen (speaking of the<br />

protagonists). Audiences want to be swept away<br />

with the story and be able to fantasize themselves<br />

into the main roles, it's much easier to do that with<br />

a Tom Cruise and Jennifer Anniston then with<br />

someone an audience might find unattractive. (OF<br />

COURSE, I AM GENERALIZING TO A GREAT DEGREE<br />

HERE...) The same applies to lighting. Within the<br />

context of the narrative, women and men should<br />

look "good." my 2 fc worth.<br />

Jay Holben<br />

Page 842


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Premise: Hollywood Studio, wanted to make picture<br />

where one of the main character is a witty British<br />

young lady in late twenties.<br />

Cast: 40+years old EXPERIENCED actress with with<br />

non-British accent at all!<br />

Her screen lower: a very well known good<br />

looking actor in his 30+.<br />

Act 1: I told to director and producer that because I<br />

do not have plastic surgeon licence I withdraw from<br />

case.<br />

"Please, let's try"- they asked.<br />

"I will be fired in disgrace after the first day,<br />

because the "big cheese" is personally selected her,<br />

he even called me reminding how such and such<br />

big DP, shot her beautifully, say 15-20 years ago,<br />

and offered me in a fact to accept a baton,<br />

forgetting to look at the calendar"<br />

"Please, let's try"- they asked again<br />

Act 2: I build Light Boxes from 2x2 to 6x6 ft and<br />

my filter package was totally bullet-proof (2,5 in of<br />

glass variety). Everybody was happy except<br />

director, actor, producer and me .<br />

Page 843


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Act 3: Unfortunately studio liked this glowing<br />

image and we start to roll. Lighting of her was<br />

simple, but to cut everybody else from spill was<br />

THE task for a grip. Needless to say it was dark,<br />

moody script .<br />

Tragic End: After 2 weeks of shooting an actor got<br />

nervous breakdown ( any conspiracy theory are<br />

welcomed!) because actress couldn’t pronounce<br />

rather sophisticated script lines and coach was<br />

hired and therefore actor's screen feelings couldn't<br />

get up. We had to be able to make maybe no more<br />

than 10 setups in the 10 hours. Production<br />

Manager got fired.<br />

Happy End : We have to stop shooting with pay for<br />

a week. An actress who suppose to be at first place<br />

(a great British actress, living in Paris) was casted,<br />

location in Paris was approved, the film was<br />

finished on time and budget.<br />

Finalé: An actress No. 1 got nervous breakdown,<br />

moved out of Los Angeles into New York desert.<br />

The Producer was fired for casting mistakes and<br />

over expenditure.<br />

Page 844


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Picture of the light box with all camera crew inside<br />

is available at<br />

request<br />

And how is your week?<br />

Yuri Neyman,<br />

Uh, so how would you (glamorously) light a woman<br />

who's been trapped in a car by a high-tech alarm<br />

system? At 12,000 feet?<br />

She can't always be keylit by the dome lite or the<br />

mirror vanity lights...<br />

Jeff "ducking and running" Kreines<br />

Page 845


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Aurasoft on a goalpost over camera.<br />

Hey! I make commercials, women ALWAYS look<br />

good :-)<br />

Cheers<br />

Geoff Boyle<br />

Okay, what Jay was alluding to was a conversation<br />

we had about my current of Hollywood casting. I<br />

think the casting of a film is so critical, obviously it<br />

can effect the entire result of the project -- both in<br />

terms of acting as well as believing the type casted<br />

is appropriate. Case in point, The Peacemaker.... I<br />

just saw a screening of it last night. Nicole Kidman<br />

as a Nuclear Physicist? With wardrobe smartly<br />

provided by Calvin Klien. Sure, all nuclear physicist<br />

look like Nicole and all covert special ops military<br />

men look like George Clooney.<br />

Page 846


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Now I'm not discrediting the concept of<br />

"suspension of disbelief" but c'mon. I wonder why<br />

the films I've been liking these days have been<br />

foreign or independents that have unique casting<br />

and original storylines. The last film I enjoyed in<br />

the theater was The Full Monty. Made for about 2<br />

million, that film puts Speed 2, Jurassic Park 2,<br />

Batman 4, Air Force One, I could go on... to shame!<br />

With the budgets of Speed 2 and Batman and<br />

Robin, we could have had 100 different original<br />

projects like The Full Monty. Let's try and focus our<br />

energies on original works with strong scripts,<br />

rather than anything that may make a buck,<br />

regardless of the fact that the script is horrendous.<br />

I look at the career choices of Roger Deakins,<br />

Darius Khondji, Conrad Hall... I think they are the<br />

examples to follow... with that said, I'm currently<br />

out of work waiting for my Searching for Bobby<br />

Fischer or Shawshank Redemption....<br />

Oh woe is me...<br />

Chris Probst<br />

Page 847


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Today I came across this old interview with Gordon<br />

Willis regarding actor's needing "special" lighting:<br />

Willis: "I don’t pay attention to actors' egos - no,<br />

that's an oversimplification. The picture comes first<br />

in my mind, which doesn't mean I don't deal with<br />

what's best for them. I won't put a picture under<br />

because someone feels that they look better this<br />

way than they look that way. I'm not going to turn<br />

out an 8x10 glossy in the middle of two unrelated<br />

things in a movie."<br />

This probably explains why Willis is not known for<br />

romanticizing women's close ups, although he had<br />

done it when the story needs it (the dream<br />

sequences in "Pennies From Heaven", for example.)<br />

Storaro is one of my all-time favorite DP's, but I<br />

must admit that some women have suffered<br />

visually under his lighting (I'm thinking of Vanessa<br />

Redgrave in "Agatha".)<br />

I also remember that Stanley Cortez was replaced<br />

on "Chinatown" for not wanting to shoot Faye<br />

Page 848


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

Dunaway with wide-angle lenses - or without any<br />

diffusion.<br />

In some ways, my favorite DP for his lighting of<br />

women is Sven Nykvist - Debra Winger in "Cannery<br />

Row", the women in Bergman's movies (how can<br />

anyone go wrong there...), Marissa Tomei in "Only<br />

You", the various women in "Chaplin"...<br />

David Mullen<br />

Page 849


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

X-Rays<br />

Some months back Kodak issued a warning<br />

regarding new X ray scanners being installed at<br />

airports. Has anyone suffered a mishap or heard of<br />

one ?<br />

Les Parrott<br />

On my homepage I have mirrored the Kodak<br />

warning. There you can also see an example of<br />

how a neg. looks like after having been through<br />

one of these x-ray machines.<br />

Cheers, Mart.<br />

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

forgot about in a bag came back from the lab with<br />

about a 50% grey base fog and grain so big it<br />

looked like dancing Be afraid. Be very afraid.<br />

Of course, if you can, mail your film with a "DO<br />

NOT X-RAY" sticker rather than take it through the<br />

Page 850


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

airport. And of course, if you have to take it<br />

through the airport, avoid the X-ray by showing<br />

the cans to security and explaining.<br />

Ben Syverson<br />

Oh No Ben!! Look what you have done! Now<br />

everyone that shoots music videos just got the<br />

latest effect. Expect to see many PA's lurking<br />

around airport security stations with duffel bags<br />

full of exposed film asking if they could put it<br />

through just one more time.<br />

Walter NY<br />

I had a project in Helsinki last February and was<br />

worried about the same thing. The advice I<br />

received back then from Kodak (UK), was to take<br />

the film stock as hand luggage. Most, if not all of<br />

the newer hand luggage X-ray machines use really<br />

weak x-ray radiation and I was assured that these<br />

would not effect the film. Whereas the checked in<br />

Page 851


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

luggage goes through a stronger x-ray machine<br />

and that would cause some fogging on the film.<br />

Even after these comforting words I was still quite<br />

nervous, while watching my stock roll through the<br />

machine. Fortunately it was not effected, which was<br />

confirmed by a speedy "clip" & stock test. However<br />

I made sure that the rushes got developed in<br />

Helsinki to avoid them going through the machine<br />

again, as I was warned about multiple passes! It is<br />

best to ask the airport staff to put your stock<br />

through the most technologically up-to-date<br />

machine and also to tell them what you are putting<br />

through. To the best of my knowledge though, it<br />

still remains quite a risk take. Maybe more could<br />

be done between the film manufacturers and the<br />

airport authorities ???<br />

Cheers,<br />

Balazs Bolygo<br />

Focus Puller bodo@badi.freeserve.co.uk<br />

This is not true - the roll I wrote about that got<br />

messed up was run through the "hand luggage"<br />

security X-ray, NOT the baggage check X-ray.<br />

Apparently the old machines didn't do much<br />

Page 852


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

damage, but the new higher -security ones are<br />

much stronger. And to hear Kodak tell it, the<br />

machines outside the US have always done<br />

damage.<br />

The hand luggage machines WILL fog your film<br />

SEVERELY. And I can't imagine that anyone would<br />

check a bag with their film in it, unless they had no<br />

regard for their footage. Not only is there the bag<br />

check X-ray to worry about, there's the potential<br />

temperature and moisture damage.<br />

Ben Syverson<br />

From my personal experience ( I am sure others<br />

out there have more). I have taken film all around<br />

the States, Being insistent that the film be Hand<br />

examined (bring a changing bag, and a roll of slug<br />

film to show them what they will be feeling), and<br />

leaving extra time, has allowed me NEVER to need<br />

to have hand carried film x-rayed.<br />

I have taken film into and out of Ireland, and<br />

England ( again with no problems). In fact leaving<br />

Ireland I was brought to a special room, where I<br />

lined up the cans. Opened up the untapped one<br />

Page 853


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

with the slug/test film and then the Security man<br />

just touched the outside each and every can of<br />

film. Without asking to examine it further. What I<br />

find usually happens is that, once you get to the<br />

hand inspection station, either they have the Bomb<br />

particle sniffer, or after two cans of film being<br />

checked in the bag, the line becomes so long<br />

behind me, that they just say, "go on through".<br />

It has only been on the Eurostar, and visiting<br />

England's Parliament where I had to have my film<br />

x-rayed ( the guards all thought my Bolex was<br />

rather cute, and they actually knew what it was). By<br />

the way, U.S. Monuments and the like will also X-<br />

ray. To enter The Statue of Liberty, we had to have<br />

the Panavision camera x-rayed ( they thought it<br />

was a lawn mower). Never had still film fogged yet,<br />

and I always forget about that and send it through.<br />

What about Using Fed-ex, or something of the like?<br />

Would that avoid the X-ray problem?<br />

Steven Gladstone<br />

Up-to-date doesn't necessarily equal weaker, or<br />

safer. The problem with the newer machines<br />

Page 854


CINEMATOGRAPHY <strong>Mailing</strong> <strong>List</strong><br />

(apparently also coming into use for hand<br />

luggage?) is their _variable_ strength. But I've<br />

noticed some airports now have notices advising<br />

you to submit film for hand inspection - previously<br />

it was "no exceptions" and "don't worry, this won't<br />

do any harm to your film". A glimmer of hope and<br />

enlightenment.<br />

The cumulative effect of multiple security checks is<br />

an important point, especially on faster film stocks.<br />

It's all a pain in the proverbial, (even for the<br />

humble holiday stills that I choose to bring home<br />

rather than process at some local 1 hour lab in the<br />

mall or street market). But in a tussle between<br />

fogged film and hijacked aircraft, film is going to<br />

come second most of the time.<br />

Dominic Case<br />

Page 855

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!