15 Days At Sea

Published : 26th June 2005

Greetings Gurus,

I just got in this evening from an incredible adventure shooting a trip on two brand new Nordic Tugs that we delivered to Juneau, Ak from Anacortes Wa. via The Inside Passage.

The boat (The ChriSara 42' Nordic Tug) that I was on had 4 hours on it when we boarded. I was also part of the crew. I set up all the navigational equipment. GPS, Sonar, & Radar, and Auto Pilot. I went to school for two days in Anacortes, Wa. to learn the finer points for the operation of the nav gear. Once we got out to sea I was on my own. Boy did I have my hands full with nav and shooting the 23 hours of footage that I shot in 15 days. What an incredible adventure.

I got some absolutely stunning footage of scenery, wildlife, sea life, historical landmarks, good times, one day of 12 twelve foot seas and a few mishaps that were very exhilarating. We had sunshine, and blue skies on our side as it only rained two of the fifteen days. This is absolutely unheard of in the month of April.

The biggest problem that I had was keeping my camera dry and clean. Keeping it dry was not so much an issue, as I used a Kata Raincoat that worked extremely well under the circumstances. I had a heck of a time keeping my filters clean from the salt air. I kept a filter on my camera most of the time so it wasn't an issue for the lense because it was protected by which ever filter I was using. My best shooting was between 6:30a and 10:00a and 4:00p and 7:00p. I used a circular polarizer with a 812 warming filter combined (Moose's Filter) most of the time with the outdoor shots. It worked very well for the glare from the water, snow, glaciers, the aqua coloured icebergs, and shooting the footage of hundreds of dolphins swimming along side our boats. At one point of the trip we had several hump back whales and dolphin porpoises swimming 5 feet from our boat. I've seen it on tv, but when you shoot this in person it is absolutely amazing.

We also naved up Tracy Arm to Sumner Glacier. We put the nose of our boat right on an aqua coloured ice berg that was 4 times the size of our boat. We took turns sitting on the bow of the boat to take photos and touch the iceberg. It was so sharp that my partner cut his finger touching it. We decided to go up the arm as far as we could go without running into and iceberg, which was about a mile and a half from the actual glacier. We shut the motor down and sat on the bow of the boat in awe. We then heard a sound like thunder. The sound came again after about five minutes, then 3 then two. I got the footage of the Glacier calving.

Wow!!!

We decided to celebrated by netting a small crystal clear chunk of an iceberg and had cocktails with 4000 thousand year old glacier ice. I'm talking cocktails at 9:00a with the oldest purest ice on earth. It was really cool. No pun intended. It took a sledge hammer to crack that ice after being under so much pressure for thousands of years.

All of the shoot was pretty much run n gun so I shot in standard mode with a shutter speed 1/60, 1/8 FD and various manual iris settings with a monopod and a 3025 head. Under the present conditions a Steady Cam Jr was out of the question. It was way too dangerous to take the risk of falling in 45º seas with a steady cam jr. I got my sea legs and learned very quickly to roll with the boat and the seas. I also had a awesome captain who was willing to do what I needed to get the shot.

I would like some ideas for cleaning lenses and filters while at sea, and not scratching them in the process. Salt air is sooooo abrasive you don't even have to touch the filter to scratch it. Needless to say I will be replacing my Moose's Filter this week.

I'm shooting another trip from Juneau through Greentop, Hoonah, Pelican Cove, Elfin Cove, Glacier Bay, and Sitka August 1

I am sending my DVX100 in for a thorough cleaning this week.

Thanks in advance for any input,

Marten BenatarRio Media ServicesNorthern California

16mm GreenScreen

I am going to use green screen in a section of an upcoming 16mm spot to isolate some waving pennants and then bring them into a shot. not having a lot of16mm experience I wonder if one camera is better suited than another, SR or Aaton.

thanks in advance

tom weston

I don't think that the camera really makes the difference, what you are looking for is probably a nice stock like the 45 to reduce any risk of grain.

Serge Desrosiers DP

The answer here is again Film, or Video?

I will not debate which camera is steadier, (actually I had an old A.C.L. that was as steady as any SR I've ever compared it to.) However remember this, as I understand it, in telecine, 16mm is registered on the side of the film, as is the Aaton. So if the film is not slit precisely the image should not weave in the telecine, as the exposed image will still be in register with the edge of the film. However since the image in an SR, is registered to a pin during exposure, theoretically if the film edge isn't perfect in relation to the perfs, there may be weave. I am not sure exactly how film is registered in 16mm opticals, however I would guess it is by registration pin.

This may not be an issue, if you are only dropping one image on top of another, and not doing split screens, and lining up matte edges, and the such. Of course if the camera you use is not up to specs, then good registration is highly unlikely.

I hope this helps.

Steven Gladstone

Since the 16mm perforations were never designed for full registration pins, at Aaton we preferred to follow the 'One Line' (side guide) 'One Point' (claw dead point at very low speed) classic geometric alignment system. The end result is that XTRs deliver a frame to frame registration which is better than 1/2000 of the frame dimensions both vertically and laterally. Who else?

There is a fixed guide and a lateral pressure guide at the image level on all Aaton cameras (like on telecines), as opposed to film channel top-right and bottom-left posts found on some other cameras; thus NO loop stiffness dependant lateral weave at all.

Furthermore this lateral pressure guide, combined with the 8 micron vault shape of the rear pressure plate, insures such a perfect depth positioning of the film (good for breathless images) that the aperture top and bottom horizontal rails are no longer necessary: that is why a Super16 Aaton XTR shows much less dust and hairs on the picture than any other camera.

Jean-Pierre

Thanks for such great input. This kind of info is really helpful to those of us who work almost exclusively in 35. Myself, I am a visual effects specialist, and registration is of the utmost importance, hence the exclusive use of 35mm. In often asked about the feasibility of shooting something on 16, and till know I've always thought it was a really bad idea, primarily from the registration point of view. It's really helpful to know that is not necessarily the case.

Thanks for the explanation!!!

Don Canfield

I spoke with someone recently who had been approached by a large broadcasting company to modify their SR3s to solve the weave issue. He was able to make a prototype gate that (at great expense) did somewhat solve the problem, but then the funding for the project (and many other things) was cut. He said the weave was often on the diagonal, due to the opposing loops in the SR magazine. (He doesn't really want to make these gates, so I won't mention his name.)

Interesting... I think the Aaton proves that simple and elegant is usually the best approach.

Jeff ""speaking in hushed tones"" Kreines

Surely Jeff it would have been less expensive for the broadcaster to go with the AATON XTRProd rather than re inventing the wheel with expensive mods and then they could have the great benefit of AatonCode, integrated video assist and a 12 volt low power operating system just to name a few features!

But then as they say ' you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!'

John Bowring.

Whilst I think weave/stability may be a problem for those who print, and lets face it, it shows up less when projected than when composited on tape.

I also believe that stability of any film is becoming less and less of an issue as it's very easy to stabilise an image later.

We're arguing pink, lime green or scotchlight balls for a motion tracked shot at the moment.

Geoff Boyle

Many telecines (especially unmodded Ranks) also add weave to an image... you might run a test film through the telecine (a simple grid will do) to check its steadiness.

Jeff Kreines - DeMott/Kreines Films

thanks to all for advice on this question. we shot this week with an SR2 and it turned out great. I shot with and without a net and found that we were able to cut a matt just fine with the net so we are going with that version (I prefer the look).

one interesting (surprising to me) effect. we shot a row of banners against the sky then lifted a 12x12 green screen (from Fore Peak in Orlando, fla., a great source for terrific and reasonably priced green screens) behind them and shot them again. the idea was to make a matte of the pennants that we could raise into the shot upside down thus creating a menacing jaw (hey, it wasn't my idea). the pennants were opaque white but aged to the point of being grey. they were back lit. against the pale blue, partly cloudy sky they were about 85 i.r.e. during the transfer, however, when the green screen was lifted behind them their value shifted to about 70 i.r.e. nothing changed from our angle. not the stop. not the lite hitting them. when I shot it I assumed the difference I saw was do to the contrast difference between the sky and the green screen but, low and behold, it was actually there on the negative. we had to ""fix"" the discrepancy with the quadra (guess who was the ""savior"") because we wanted the upper and lower ""teeth"" to match. it turned out fine but I still don't understand the density shift.

tom

16mm B & W Feature FilmPublished - 19th November 2003

We're in the planning stages of a 16mm B/W feature-length film, and I'd like to ask if anyone knows if there are non-Kodak film stocks worth looking into or that have interesting/superior qualities. I remember seeing a film stock supplier on the Web offering a Eastern European (or perhaps just European) stock that had superior image qualities, but the name of this stock has completely slipped my mind.

Would appreciate any information – especially working experience - that anyone might have.

(Another motivation for looking at foreign film stock would be to save money, although this is not the primary motivation.)

John Sabotta

John Sabotta wrote :

>I remember seeing a film stock supplier on the Web offering a Eastern >European (or perhaps just European) stock that had superior image >qualities, but the name of this stock has completely slipped my mind.

Greetings,

You are probably referring to ORWO ORWO makes two types of neg film: UN 54(EI 100/21) and N74(EI 400/27)

RegardsEmmanuel from Munich

Filmotec GmbHChemiepark Bitterf. WolfAr. A, Röntgenstr. 415D-06766

www.filmotec.de

John Sabotta wrote :

>I'd like to ask if anyone knows if there are non-Kodak film stocks worth >looking into...

You seem to be describing ORWO (which I've never used) you should look into Ilford’s range of 16mm B&W stocks (which I have);

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Fp4mpic.pdfhttp://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Hp5mpic.pdfhttp://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/SFXmp.pdf

They come in little cardboard boxes (rather than metal cans) which some Americans seem to find quaint & amusing but they are really beautiful stocks with their own character - distinct from Kodak’s stocks.

Yours,

Tom TownendC inematographer/London.

Hi John,

>Would appreciate any information - especially working experience - that >anyone might have.

I shot a roll of the Orwo UN54 on a spec commercial and found it to be very low contrast with lots of silvery looking midtones when compared to the 5231 that was my primary stock. It's really fine grained too.

I was shooting with a Red 25 filter in bright daylight, It's was very different looking than the Kodak and I remember having some trouble matching it in TK. ( good colorist / Spirit / Da-Vinci ).

I love shooting black and white.

Matt Uhry D.P. Los Angeles

www.fuzby.com

16mm Frames Per Foot

Published : 4th June 2004

Hi All :

Momentary brain freeze.

I'm trying to calculate time-lapse film consumption and I want to check my

facts.

16mm film contains 36 frames in each foot, right?

If I'm wrong, I'm going to blame my expertise in Digital filmmaking for making me forget

Thanks

Joe Di GennaroDirector of PhotographyNorth Hollywood, CA

Joe Di Gennaro wrote :

> 16mm film contains 36 frames in each foot, right?

40

Jeff Kreines

Thank you...

Now I can do my math and go to bed...it's been a little too long between jobs with sprockets...

Thanks..

Joe Di Gennaro

Joe Di Gennaro wrote:

>thank you...now I can do my math and go to bed...it's been a little too long between >jobs with sprockets…thanks..

Time to replace the blue belt inside your CP16R, Joe -- they rot every few years...and can cause damage when they disintegrate.

Jeff "has a couple of CP16s" Kreines

Kodak has a very handy on-line "Film Calculator" that calculates running time, film length, etc., for almost every current film format and frame rate. Here's the link :

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/index.jhtml

John PytlakEI Customer Technical ServicesEastman Kodak Company

Joe Di Gennaro wrote:

>16mm film contains 36 frames in each foot, right?

Forty frames per foot, as Jeff said. However, the number 36 is also relevant and maybe why it stuck in your mind. That's how many feet of 16mm film run through the camera every minute when you're rolling at 24-frames/sec. For 35mm it's sixteen, 4-perf frames per foot -- 90 feet per minute at 24 fps.

Handy numbers to remember when you're calculating shooting ratios.

Don Ver PloegVP CommunicationsPittsford, NY

Joe Di Gennaro writes :

>16mm film contains 36 frames in each foot, right?

16mm :

40 frames per foot36 feet per minute at sound speed (24fps).

35mm : (4-perf)

16 frames per foot90 feet per minute at sound speed.

Cheers....

Dan "... or 35.964 feet per minute at 23.976fps" DrasinProducer/DPMarin County, CA

There is also a time-lapse calculation chart on page 893 of the ASC Manual, 8th Edition.

David MallinCloudchaser FilmsPO Box 170267San Francisco, CA 94117

 

 

 

Shooting At 25fps In A 60Hz Country

Hello, An upcoming job requires 25fps shot in the States. The question is what is a flicker free shutter angle? 144 degrees? Someone has suggested 150 degrees, which isn't an actual setting, is it?

There will be xenon in the show and varilites, it's a concert music video . Also, what about going to 50fps?

Thanks,

Harry Dawson

Yes, 150° is to be used for 60Hz HMI at 25fps:(1/25 s. x 150/360 = 1/60 s.)144° is used to shoot NTSC CRT screens at 24fps:(1/24 s. x 144/360 = 1/60 s.)

This shutter opening angle is available on XTRprod's and the latest SR-3's.

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

Most 60Hz generators will not function at 50Hz properly (20% underspeed is to far from "home" for them) but they will almost always run at 62.5Hz...and at 62.5Hz, you can shoot 25 fps with impunity. I have not actually tried this myself,

but the late Bernie Grubeman of Camera Mart NY convinced me of this back in 1980 or so and I have heard other people HAVE done it. I hope this is helpful information. Obviously if you can go to a lighting rental house that has Varilight's and shoot a short test this would be a GOOD idea.

Mark

By the way, 150 degree shutter will work both for 25fps and for 50 fps.At 25fps, 150 degree is 1/60th sec, 75 degree is 1/120th secAt 50 fps, 150 degree is 1/120th sec.

Silly question but why not shoot at 24fps? The Americans do it all the time and then send their stuff over here for TX at 25fps.

Looks and sounds fine -Shangara Singh.

Others told you that 150 degree shutter at 25fps is the way to go ...

BTW...150 degree shutter and 25 fps is also the _perfect_ combination to shoot NTSC monitors w/o having to sync. At that combination there simply isn't a roll bar ...

But, trying to get exactly 150 degrees can be a problem ...

While testing this combination with a Platinum Panastar I had better "luck" setting the shutter to 150 using the scribe marks on the back of the shutter itself (visible after pulling the movement) vs. using the digital shutter display. When I asked Panavision about it, the mechanical engineers said their marks were more accurate, while of course the electronics people said that their digital display _should_ have been more accurate ... ?

Arri says their digital display is completely accurate, however when we tried the test using a 535A and inputting the shutter angle via the CCU computer link, the test footage showed that something was slightly off ... ?

DP, Gary Thieltges (spelling ?) who seemingly "discovered" this combination because he shoots a lot of european commercials at 25 fps, apparently had Arri Burbank add a 150 degree "notch" to his camera(s).

If the shutter is slightly off, you will start to see a few white or black (depending in which direction its off) dots in a line in your footage. These are the beginning of the out of sync line forming. Certainly better then a solid line.

I don't know how exact the 150 degree shutter setting has to be for your application with lights ....

Even using the handy RCU control unit, you should be able to very accurately dial in 150 degrees with either an Arri 435ES or 535A camera.

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

Cheers,Marc Shipman-Mueller, Technical RepresentativeArriflex Corporation; 1646 N. Oakley Ave, Suite #2, Chicago, IL 60647-5319, USA

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

Mark

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

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

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

Mark Weingartner

Mark H. Weingartner writes :

>It seems to me that using an NTSC monitor to "calibrate" a variable shutter to achieve 150 degrees for 50 fps shooting in a 60 Hz world as described by Mako is a very accurate way to go

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

John DuclosTechnical Manager - Arri Media

In terms of phasing, of course,you can't see what you will get, but in terms of speed, you should be able to see the roll bar going one way or the other in the viewfinder ...if it isn't moving up or down the frame you have the right shutter angle/speed combo.

Since all you need in order to avoid flicker with the lighting fixtures is the right speed/angle combo as opposed to the additional issue of phase when actually shooting monitors or rephotographing film, it seems to me that you would be home free. Having said that, I think I need to run down to Clairmont or somewhere and borrow a body and a monitor to test my cockamamie theory.

Mark Weingartner

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

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

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

Cheers ...

Mako

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

Try it, Mark, and you'll find that 25fps and 150 degrees on an NTSC monitor will not give you a stationary roll bar. What it does give you is 1/60 second exposure time (one field of video) on film only.

Your eye gets its image from the 180 degree, fixed segment of mirror on the shutter which =1/50 second. This will appear as a rolling, bright band running through the screen.

John DuclosTechnical Manager - Arri Media

Does anyone still rent P.O.M.'s? I don't recall, but if there were a setting that cycled the LED's at 60 Hz, you could check your shutter that way, but since the device was designed to check speed for reference to sound, I suppose it only cycles with respect to 24 frames or 25 frames, not necessarily 50Hz or 60Hz. Any one know ?

Mark

Ideal frame rate/shutter angle for 60 cycle fluorescent tubes is 24fps/144 degrees (or 30fps and 180 degrees or 33.33 fps and 200 degrees), but we regularily get away with filming normal fluorescent tubes at 24 fps at 180/200 degree shutters.

At 25 fps the ideal shutter is 150 degrees. But if your camera can't be set for 150 degrees (SR3) are you going to be O.K. at 25fps and 180 degrees? Would that be better then 25 fps at 144 degrees ... ?

Wouldn't it be better to have two pulses plus (180 degrees) rather then not getting atleast 2 pulses (144 degrees)?

Can anyone predict how bad the fluorescent flicker will be if you can't film at 25 fps and 150 degrees .... ?

I had a film test done at a rental house on friday to test filming an NTSC TV source at 150 degree and 25 fps. Supposedly with this combination one should not have to do any phasing since their should be _no_ scan line.

Looking through the camera (Arri 435ES/180 degree mirror) viewfinder and through the aperture gate (pressure plate removed, "magic" frosted "scotch" tape over the aperture to act as a ground glass) at a TV monitor receiving an over the air signal with the camera running at 25 fps and at and around 150 degrees revealed a rolling soft edge dark diagnol band.

A call was made to DP Gary Thieltges (who "discovered" this shutter/fps combination) who said yes you will see this band but it won't photograph ...(?!)

Apparently there will be a thin scan line every 7th (8th?) frame but it won't be noticable during normal viewing.

The monitor was filmed at 25 fps/150 degrees and at 25 fps with the shutter being slowly changed between 148 and 152 degrees with the RCU control unit in the shot so that the degree settings will be visible in the footage.

A 25 fps test was also shot with a MovieCam SL since it has a mechanical indent for 150 degrees.

We don't know if the resolution of the Arri RCU display is accurate enough to set at 150.15 degrees. This would be the actual shutter angle needed at 25 fps with the NTSC monitor scanning at 59.94 cycles. (shutter angle = frame rate times 3 times 2.002 "pulses"/exposure cycle)

Can a mechanical shutter indent be made accuarately and practically at 150.15 degrees ... ?

The transfer will be done on Monday and hopefull we can post the results on Tuesday when I get back into town from my location shoot.

Since this thread was started by a question concerning shooting in the US at 25 fps for the European market, it was interesting to see a 9 camera prep taking place at the same rental house, for concert footage being shot here for Europe.

The cameras are going to run at 25 fps and 144 degree shutter.

The question is why 144 degree shutter? With this combination the DP must be using tungsten [or square wave HMI's ?] [it's indoors] light ... but then why not have the shutters set a 180 degrees for maximum through put? Maybe he wants that minimal amount of extra strobbing/extra sharpness?

The nine cameras are Arri SR3's, whose shutters can not be set to 150 degrees. There will also be one Aaton XTR (whose shutter can be set at 150 degrees) as the "A" crane camera w/ 800' mags.

I haven't seen the footage/transfer myself but I talked to the techs at Otto Nemenz Int. camera rental house in Hollywood who kindly shot our 25fps/150 degree test of a NTSC monitor.

The footage taken with the Arri 435ES at 25 fps/150 degrees was almost perfect. After repeated close up viewing of the transfer one could make out the very slight beginnings of a line - a string of dots.

The footage where they slowly altered the shutter angle from about 148 to 152 degrees showed a constantly changing (in width) line that disappeared at about 150 degrees and then immediately reappeared. Apparently the way they photographed the RCU display made it difficult to see the read out.

The footage taken with the MovieCaM SL with it's shutter set to a mechanical indent of 150 degrees showed a very obvious bar.

They are going to redo the test using a number of different 435 bodies and now setting the shutter to 150.1 and 150.2 degree. The RCU does not allow a setting of 150.15, which is the "perfect" shutter angle for 59.94 scan.

We've found that the removing the bar completely requires an extremely precise shutter, but that perhaps the electronically inputted shutter angle with the 435/535 family of Arri cameras is accurate enough to allow filming of NTSC monitors without any phasing.

The mechanical indent on the MovieCams are not accurate enough to allow using this "emergency" procedure.

I'll keep everyone posted on any further tests

I'd like to publicly send Mako an enormous thank you for this information.

I've already made use of it.

I'm shooting a commercial for a chain of computer stores at the moment.

My biggest problem on the main store location was that I had to use the florrie fittings, they're well featured in shot, the roof is a suspended one and it wouldn't support the weight of the 72 Kino Flo 4' 4banks I would have to use.

I had to use daylight corrected florrie tubes instead. This meant that at anything other than 25, 50 or 100 I would have flicker problems.

Unfortunately the shot was full of working computers all running at different speeds. I was able to adjust these all to the same speed but there was still going to be a flicker problem as I couldn't lock the camera running speed to the monitors.

We solved this by setting all the monitors to VGA and 60Hz, this actually measured at 59.94, with my B&S meter, thanks Bill.

We then set the shutter to 150 to allow for the monitors at 60 Hz, the 25 fps was safe with the florries at any shutter angle.

We checked by running the camera at 29.96 and various speeds around this, no flicker, some small bars, but hey! a 10mm lens and a swooping crane will cover those.

This is what I love about CML...

Cheers

Geoff Boyle...

 

3 Strip Technicolor

Published : 2nd March 2004

Did I read it or dream it, but is there a new stock that is suppose to allow the creation of the feel and saturation of 3 Strip Technicolor?

David Macklin

ACTING In The Motion Picture BUSINESShttp://www.davidmacklin.com

From : David Macklin

>Did I read it or dream it, but is there a new stock that is suppose to allow >the creation of the feel and saturation of 3 Strip Technicolor?

Kodachrome

Steven Gladstone

>Did I read it or dream it, but is there a new stock that is suppose to allow >the creation of the feel and saturation of 3 Strip Technicolor?

Well, the "Technicolor" look was a combination of the 3-strip camera process and the dye transfer printing process -- and it wasn't across the board more saturated unless you wanted that look. It was pretty malleable in terms of color saturation and some people went for fairly muted shades, particularly in the 1930's.

Kodak has the Vision Premier print stock in 35mm (2393) which has a dye-transfer level of color saturation and deepness to the blacks, although being a photo-chemical process, it would never exactly watch the types of dyes used in the dye transfer process.

I suspect one could get a Technicolor-like look using a D.I., perhaps starting with normally-processed E6 color reversal photography (Fuji Velvia or Kodak Ektachrome 5285), and printing the recorded output negative to Vision Premier.

David MullenCinematographer / L.A.

David Mullen wrote:

>Well, the "Technicolor" look was a combination of the 3-strip camera >process and the dye transfer printing process -- and it wasn't across the >board more saturated unless you wanted that look.

The 1956 production of MOBY DICK was shot in Technicolor and so muted that when the film started you wondered if it was color or just a tinted stock. They were trying for a cold, New England whaling town look and succeeded.

Wade K. Ramsey, DPDept. of Cinema & Video ProductionBob Jones UniversityGreenville, SC 29614

>The 1956 production of MOBY DICK was shot in Technicolor and so >muted that when the film started you wondered if it was color or just a >tinted stock.

Actually it was shot on Eastmancolor 5248 (25 ASA tungsten) and printed using Technicolor's dye transfer process. What gave the prints that unique look (and the studio only allowed half the prints to be made this way) was that the three B&W positive separations made from the monopack Eastmancolor negative used "broad" or "wide cut" filters instead of the correct "narrow" or "clean cut" filters.

This means that the separate red, green, and blue records on the B&W positive "matrices" still contained information from the other two colors. When recombined using the dye transfer method onto the blank receiver, a very desaturated and somewhat low-contrast image resulted.

Technicolor Labs had developed this technique to make prints for film-chain transfers to TV. Ozzie Morris saw one of these prints being screened at Technicolor and decided to use that approach for "Moby Dick". The only problem was the low-contrast look, which they didn't want. Luckily, Technicolor still had set-up in their dye transfer printing line a fourth pass for adding a silver "key" image, used in the 1930's to improve the blacks in the print but discontinued when the process was improved and didn't need the silver key image, allowing the stronger color saturation of late 1930's dye transfer prints.

John Huston and Ozzie Morris did shoot "Moulin Rouge" using the 3-strip Technicolor camera process but it was discontinued by the time of "Moby Dick."

John Huston wanted to use the same printing technique on "Reflections In a Golden Eye" as he did on "Moby Dick" but by then, Technicolor had removed the fourth silver key printer from the dye transfer line-up (or perhaps Technicolor Italia, who did the printing, never had the fourth printer installed). Instead, a more elaborate method of printing a B&W dupe image over the color image was used. I don't recall the exact method but I do have the old "American Cinematographer" article on it somewhere in a box.

David MullenCinematographer / L.A.

Wade K Ramsey

>The 1956 production of MOBY DICK was shot in Technicolor and so >muted that when the film started you wondered if it was color or just a

>tinted stock.

John Huston wanted an almost B & W film, so Oswald Morris experimented and created a very desaturated print by printing with what they called "wide-cut" filter bands and not the clean cut filter bands (I'm sure a 3 strip Technicolor expert could explain the process in better detail). They then overlay a B & W print to give a richer black.

If I remember correctly they used a similar effect on "Deliverance"

Brian DrysdaleDP & SteadicamBelfast

David Mullen wrote :

>Actually it was shot on Eastmancolor 5248 (25 ASA tungsten) and >printed using Technicolor's dye transfer process...

Thanks, David, for your usual clear, explicit and interesting explanation of the process!

Wade K. Ramsey, DPDept. of Cinema & Video ProductionBob Jones UniversityGreenville, SC 29614

David Mullen writes :

>Actually it was shot on Eastmancolor 5248 (25 ASA tungsten) and >printed using Technicolor's dye transfer process.

David :

Thanks for the details on how that rather special Moby Dick look was achieved.

We had the pleasure of restoring it for DVD some months ago.

John LowryLowry Digital Images

David Mullen wrote:

>Luckily, Technicolor still had set-up in their dye transfer printing line a >fourth pass for adding a silver "key" image, used in the 1930's to >improve the blacks in the print but discontinued when the process was >improved…

The image that was transferred by the matrices to the "blank" was actually transferred to black-and-white print film, the equivalent to today's 5302 positive stock. The first operation was to print the optical sound track, the frame lines (remember, this is during the days of the Academy aperture), and the edge print info--which was footage numbers starting at 00000 at the "Picture Start" frame on the Academy leader and proceeding through the entire reel--with one number increases each foot. These numbers were used to order replacement footage for damaged reels, and to check to see if any scenes had been "lifted" from any given reel. The sound track had to be silver since the photo electric cells for sound pick-up in those days were infrared sensitive only, and dye tracks were nearly transparent to the cell.

So, adding any image area (picture) density was easy--just make a black-and-white dupe negative of the desired density from any or all of the picture material, then print it on a standard contact printer along with the other black-and-white material. Normal processing was done to the exposed positive stock, then the processed "blank" (it wasn't blank any longer) received the Y-C-M dye transfer as needed for the picture. This was a whole lot simpler than trying to put silver onto a finished dye image. I have film samples in my collection that show this silver image by reflected light.

Very fascinating.

>David Macklin wrote :

>When did 3 strip come in? Weren't some early 1930's films done in >2strip?

As others have mentioned, Technicolor started out with a two-color system. However, as a historical note, there was another two-color process which existed into the early 1950's, which had the trademark name of "Cinecolor", if I remember correctly. I have film clips of this, also. The camera shot a bi-pack film load. The two films went thru a standard camera, but used a bi-pack magazine. The top magazine, which had the blue sensitive film in it was threaded thru the camera with the base facing the camera lens, and the emulsion was coated with an orange coloured dye. Since the film was blue sensitive, it only recorded the blue light coming from the scene. The orange filter on the emulsion surface passed the orange light (but stopped the blue) onto the panchromatic film. The pan film was loaded in the normal fashion with the emulsion facing the lens and in contact with the blue-sensitive film. Both negative records received standard negative processing in any lab.

Cinecolor Corporation then made the final release prints. A double coated

black-and-white print film was used--that is, emulsion was on both sides of the base. One side of the print stock was printed with the blue negative. The other side was printed with the orange negative. The print stock emulsion layers were both dyed yellow, and the light from the printer was filtered through a blue filter. This confined the image being printed on one side from passing through the print film base to the other side. After the second image was printed on the opposite side, the print film then received standard black-and-white developing--today it would be a modified D-16 developer. After development, the end product was a dense black-and-white print.

Now, comes the magic!

The blue image side of the print was floated (yes, floated, not submerged) across a toner solution--uranium toner, I believe. After rinsing, the film could then be submerged in a selenium toner (Wade K, please correct my toners if I'm incorrect) to give the orange tone on the other side. The end result was a fairly cheap color print--much cheaper than Technicolor, and capable of being done in any B & W motion picture lab with little new investment in specialized equipment. Also, the silver image was now toned--a very permanent method to prevent silver image fading due to sulphur compounds in the air--not a big problem with motion pictures, but we've all seen faded black-and-white photos which have turned yellow. The biggest problem was focus. The projected image is always shown through lenses which are "wide open"--never stopped down, so the depth of field (and likewise the depth of image) were always too shallow for the double coated print stock. Best focus was in the middle of the base. The color was fair--definitely not anywhere as good as a three color system. The film samples I have are from a B grade science fiction film titled (I think) "Mission to Mars".

Regarding Technicolor dye transfer printing, it is not dead. Technicolor sold their print making facilities lock-stock-and barrel to China in the early '70's. China did not have a cost of labor problem, so the labor intensive three strip imbibition printing was great for them. They could make color prints from blank 35mm stock (assuming no optical sound). In fact, they invented their own distribution format to maximize the 35mm width of the film especially for the Technicolor equipment---8.75 mm! This was the days before cheap video tape formats were as wide spread and 8mm formats were the "in" thing.

Three years ago, the big Christmas release was "The Family Man" with Nicholas Cage. The neat thing about this film was that 200 prints were made in China on the old Technicolor equipment--with the silver track and silver edge-print--which is now occupied on both edges with the Sony SDDS digital tracks. One of the theatres where I engineer received one Eastman color print, and one dye-imbibition print. Wow, what a chance for comparison.

I spent two weeks moving from one auditorium to the other checking out the

image quality. The biggest difference? ...good solid colors. Highlights in the IB print were sometimes blown out, whereas they were ok on the EC print--forehead highlights, for example. Blacks were more solid on the IB print--less shadow detail. Reds popped on the IB print. There did not appear to be any silver in the image--I closely examined the film to see. It was fun to get the young staff and take them into the auditorium running the EC print, then take them into the auditorium running the IB print and point out the differences. They were amazed!

"So, that's what Technicolor was like!" was their response!

Hope this helps.

Wade I. Ramsey (the other Wade Ramsey)Dailies Projectionist, Projection Engineer(formerly camera assistant and film editor)Fort Mill, SC (near Charlotte, NC)

Yes, you're correct that the "blank" with dye mordant was essentially a B&W emulsion which allowed the soundtrack & framelines to be printed onto the print, so sometimes a halftone silver "key" image derived from the green record (in three-strip photography) could be printed as well.

I don't know with "Moby Dick", since it was shot in color negative, but I suppose the original color negative could have been used to print the silver key image onto the blank without having to make a B&W dupe of it first, since it would become B&W by virtue of going from color negative to the B&W positive.

I'd have to dig up my old article on "Reflections in a Golden Eye" to figure out why Technicolor Italia couldn't also just print a silver halftone image over the dye image, since they went through a more elaborate system of combining B&W dupes with the color image to create desaturated matricesbefore the dye transfer step.

David MullenCinematographer / L.A.

>sometimes a halftone silver "key" image

Lawrence Olivier has an anecdote in his autobiography. He went to see a print of Henry V some years after the original release, and was dismayed to find, when the English archers sent off a volley of arrows at Agincourt – in the mist at dawn - he heard the "whoosh" of the arrows but saw nothing of the

arrows. He left the theatre and called Technicolor (so he says) and it transpired that the new prints had been made without the fourth colour or silver image being exposed - as Tech had recently discontinued this. Since the effect of this key image was to enrich the blacks (almost a proto-beach bypass effect), the arrows in the mist simply disappeared from view without it.

At least this is his explanation of it. I'm sure David Macklin won't mind if I say that actors don't always give thoroughly accurate technical accounts of things - but this seems to be at least plausible.

Maybe David Mullen's library can verify this??

Dominic CaseAtlab Australia

>Maybe David Mullen's library can verify this??

It's not in any of my books... but I'm sure that Olivier was not making it up.

David MullenCinematographer / L.A.

And, of course, thank you David and others for this great information ON list.

>Well, the "Technicolor" look was a combination of the 3-strip camera >process and the dye transfer printing process -- and it wasn't across the >board more saturated unless you wanted that look.

Thanks for the other very interesting information. In, at least one sense, the Kodachrome would be an improvement as dyes fade.

David Macklin

> In, at least one sense, the Kodachrome would be an improvement as >dyes fade

I don't think the pigments in Technicolor prints fade much.

Then too, I have prints made on the old Kodachrome 7387 print stock which look identical to the way they looked fresh out of the lab....

Sam Wells

>### If one wanted to do a period piece with the "Captain Blood" look >and in 3D would the Kodachrome discussed work?

I don't think the pigments in Technicolor prints fade much.

David Macklin

> ### If one wanted to do a period piece with the "Captain Blood" look >and in 3D would the Kodachrome discussed work?

No they haven't made that print stock in many years.

Sam Wells

David Macklin wrote:

>### If one wanted to do a period piece with the "Captain Blood" look >and in 3D would the Kodachrome discussed work?

Kodachrome is not available as a 35mm motion picture stock.

Jeff Kreines

Sam Wells wrote:

>### If one wanted to do a period piece with the "Captain Blood" look >and in 3D would the Kodachrome discussed work?

No they haven't made that print stock in many years.

### I was asking about the new Kodachrome... surely they still make it. What kind of stock was used for "Spy Kids 3D" (blue-red glasses) or Cameron's Imax Titanic 3D or "The House of Wax" for that matter.(Polaroid)

David Macklin

David Macklin wrote:

>What kind of stock was used for "Spy Kids 3D" (blue-red glasses) or >Cameron's Imax Titanic 3D or "The House of Wax" for that >matter.(Polaroid)

Huh?

Both were shot on HD video.

Jeff Kreines

David Macklin wrote :

> ### I was asking about the new Kodachrome... surely they still make it. >What kind of stock was used for "Spy Kids 3D" (blue-red glasses) or >Cameron's Imax Titanic 3D or "The House of Wax" for that >matter.(Polaroid)

Spy Kids and Titanic 3D were shot in dual HD, printed out to standard print stocks.

House of wax was shot on color negative film (not Technicolor 3 strip) then printed to standard print stocks. The polarizing was introduced at the projector lens, whether it was dual projector or single projector with the left right images stacked on the negative.

There was an experimental process that Polaroid came up with that combined left and right on one strip, overlaid, with the polarizing built into the print, no special lens needed. I saw a strip of it, pretty cool. Disney experimented with it on an animated short (Whistle Plink toot Boom??). But I don't think it was ever released or used.

Films shot IN Technicolor 3 strip can look like anything you want pretty much, pastel or saturated. The longevity comes from the fact that there is no actual color dye used in the process, it's just three strips of black and white film shot in registration through color filters. You could even print them to black and white negative stock and project through three registered filters if you wanted. But it means they have the archival performance of black and white film.

You could print them to Technicolor prints or to Eastman color prints. Technicolor prints weren’t' really a photographic process, it was more of a lithography process, and the color dyes or inks were much much more stable. You could make Technicolor prints from Eastman color negatives, and that was done until the seventies. The last film printed that way was Godfather II I believe.

It's the Technicolor prints that have a specific look, or can. They made really saturated colors and deep blacks possible.

Steven Bradford,Seattle

David Macklin wrote :

>When did 3 strip come in? Weren't some early 1930's films done in 2 >strip?

As best as my records indicate, which have been handed down through a number of engineers and sales folks within Kodak in Rochester, Kodak first introduced Eastman Cine-Positive tinted stocks in 1921, Kalmus Yellow Positive Matrix stocks (2 of them)for Technicolor 2-color in 1923-1928.

We also manufactured two Eastman films that I only have as Eastman Zelcras (Bi-Pack) Film (nitrate base), code 1208, from 1930-1938, and Eastman Sincras (Bi-Pack) Film (nitrate base, code 1209, from 1934-1939. There may have been other stocks but my records do not indicate their names or manufacturing dates.

I hope this information aids those historians of motion images.

Frederick Knauf,Sr. Product EngineerKodak Park, RochesterEastman Kodak Company

>When did 3 strip come in? Weren't some early 1930's films done in 2 >strip?

2-colour Technicolor goes back to 1917, when it was an additive process using red & green filtered projectors in tandem. In 1921 they introduced the two-colour subtractive system, with a beam-splitting prism in the camera producing red and green(ish) separations on successive frames (a bit like the sequential tri-seps used far more recently for Kubrick's films among others). Prints from this type of negative used a frame-skipping optical printer to make separation prints which were then bleached and colour-dyed, then cemented together back-to-back. Toll of the Sea (1922) and The Black Pirate( 1926) were examples.

Dye matrix printing came in later in the 1920s, resulting in a single-layer dye print . When the three-colour system finally got going in 1932, it was used on Disney cartoons for three years before the first feature (Becky Sharp) was produced.

Dominic Case Atlab Australia

 

 

 

Shooting 3D stills

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

Leland Krane--

Hi, there was an article entitled 'Virtual Camera Movement: The Way of the Future?' and was in Sept

1996 issue. Interesting stuff, and there is someone in the UK using a similar technique, who we tried to get involved on a film shot last year, 'Photographing Fairies'. Unfortunately he was busy, expensive, arrogant and unhelpful, so we just used the 435 and adapted our ideas. But it seems complex and time-consuming, and I suspect that only commercials and fairly large budget pictures could really afford it, unless you custom built a rig and explored the possibilities, in which case it would be time-consuming and complex, and you'd have to pay instead of the production company.......

The gist of it is that you use a strip of still cameras, which are arranged around the (moving) subject in space. They are triggered simultaneously, and the resulting images transferred sequentially to 35mm film, or video or whatever. The result appears to be a tracking shot around a frozen subject, and has been described as having an almost 3D feel. It means you could track, say, 180 degrees around a popping balloon, or around an object or person in mid-flight or action.

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

Chris Plevin

I think you refer to a technique called : Time Slicing", invented by Tim McMillan. So far everybody in this newsgroup refers to the system mentioned in the A.C. and showed on the "Shots" tape. Original a French idea using fifty stills camera.

The good thing about "Time Slicing" is that it all takes place in camera. The camera can freeze a moment of time whilst continuously panning around it and without stopping, move the image back in to real time live action all in a single take! You can dolly with the camera and even hang it on a crane.

I have seen some incredible shots on a showreel of "Live from Bermuda". Unfortunately I don't have a direct number for you, sorry.

Bastiaan Houtkooper (N.S.C.)

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

Mark Schlicher

Taylor's rig, as described on American Cinematographer last spring, was an arrangement of still cameras.

In essence, it is a line of still cameras with the shutters able to be triggered in whatever sequence is required. If one were to trigger each camera simultaneously, and then edit each frame together, the result would appear to be a "dolly" shot on a frozen moment in time. Others have tried this with varying degrees of success with a line of motion picture cameras. This results in a matrix of images, with the vertical axis of the matrix being a sequence in time (the film strip from one camera), and the horizontal axis a sequence in space (the same frame in time from each of the cameras).

By selectively editing images from this matrix together, infinite choices of camera "motion" over variable moments can be made to manipulate the motion / time relationship.

That's it in a nutshell. The technique has been attempted on a recent car commercial and music video (can't remember the car make or musicians), and it is rumored to have been used on "Batman and Robin" for some Mr. Freeze shots (or was at least being considered at one point), and I know it was at least considered for an upcoming effects driven English feature production.

I for one, don't really see much of a broad based application for this technique. I think it smacks of being terribly faddish, like morphs and no bleach. However, I've been considering uses for it, and know of some people who are rumored to be working on systematizing it. I'd love to here opinions from this group on it's viability.

Don Canfield

Dayton Taylor was basically using the same sort of setup that Muybridge used in the nineteenth century, just with optical triggering rather than a set of strings to trigger the shutters. It's an interesting effect, but of limited use and definitely difficult.

< You might consider just doing stop motion work instead... move the car an inch, move the camera an inch, fire the shutter, move the car an inch....

Scott Dorsey

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

D. McClelland

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

Still kinda cool, though.

Dave Trulli

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

applications"?

Stefan

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

How about a little subtlety?

Jeff "the old crank" Kreines

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

Charles "have nothing against dolly or zooms" Newman

The inventor of the system is Dayton Taylor.

It is quite a unique system. The Music Clip was for the Stones and is extraordinary but I'm not sure if that was Daytons system.

Boy you guys sound really negative about something that is a really neat way of looking at images and is somewhat new (in modern times). Sure it has limited uses and it is post heavy. But so what. For the right applications it's a tool to be used. Nothing more nothing less. Not something to be put down as "oh it's just a trendy trick and has no place." Where is our sense of wonderment and joy over something that is new and unique? And the person who asked the question obviously has an idea where this system can be used. Let's not try to talk him out of it before he even knows what it is, for heavens sake!

Steven Poster ASC

Touche. You're right about wonderment and such. There is no question that this effect is way cool. I suppose my unstated thoughts are wondering if it would be economically viable to create a camera system to create this effect on a broad market basis. There has been success in creating this effect in new and unique situations without sophisticated systems. So, would a comprehensive packaged system simply accelerate the effect becoming trite, passé, and cliché, and encourage its becoming an overused show-off effect?

Therein lies my analogy to morph and short-lived trends. Does the fad last long enough to justify building such a system ......? Just thinking out loud with out letting you know all that I'm thinking.

Not that any of this really matters.....

< Don Canfield

Real purpose ? How much deeper purpose did the Lumiere bros. need, Jeff ?

True, the 'Camera invention' here may have no real purpose in 'most films' but then in the history of this medium the trix came first (we all start as kids).

If we think of our default paradigm as flickering Renaissance painting (we have our camera obscura and our oils all in one small portable box) given movement... great beauty, ideas can be made from our conventional means of rendering motion in time, from the way we use the units, the frames.

But if we were to substitute a _sculptural_ metaphor, 'finding the form in the uncut stone' as they say... ?

(What is the 'purpose' of camera movement, for instance ? of Crane shots ?

Well we can and do assign all kinds of purpose, but why does the omniscience of camera movement have to be tied to the reproduction of _space_ & in (more or less) real-time ? Why NOT form instead ? Or Both ?)

Doesn't use of the 'Camera Invention' say: here is another way to deal out the deck of frames, it's Muybridge taken in another direction, maybe we might say motion-pictured-sculpture: the Greeks of the classic period for example, might have been damn near to doing Renaissance perspective, but they were interested in something else, in sculptural forms, that may not be our agenda but is this any less sophisticated a way to see/depict things ?

If _still_ photography is a legitimate means for conveying ideas and single-camera sequential cinematography is too, why not these 'dynamic stills' ? (I'm really being rhetorical here, I don't really know how far anyone could go with these gizmos).

Depends on how you use it, maybe it is an approach to imaging itself, not necessarily a gimmick to be inserted.

Sam 'not car shopping anyway' Wells

Or really overcranked with strobes. You could arrange the cameras in a circle, and do a continuous virtual dolly shot around a Doc Edgerton stroboscopic popping balloon... Muybridge for the 90s.

It would be cool, the first three times.

Then you could morph it and maybe use a shifting lensboard on each camera to play with focus and put it on the Flame and do some more stuff and maybe bring out that slow motion lens...

(above said ironically...)

Jeff "met Doc E once" Kreines

There's another company doing this type of effect, Paws and Company.

As a NY based efx person I've been intrigued with this type of imagery since seeing some examples going back about a year ago. There are several approaches to this type of visual effect. One method is via film-based image capture. That's the method Paws and company, Dayton Taylor, Tim McMillan,

Reel EFX, etc. are pursuing. The other method is via CGI, such as Cineon interpolation.

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

The apparent leader via the CGI method is a place in France called BUF. They do beautiful work but their abilities in manipulating the imagery is limited compared to the film-based approach.

I've a wealth of info on this effect, anyone want to reach me I'm at PWefx@aol.com.

Peter Weiss

And in the spirit of equal time to reply :-

Peter Weiss is not the objective visual effects director he makes himself out to be, but rather is an IATSE Local 52 Inside Prop and the "engineer" and part-owner of the PAWS system (see http://www.hitpaws.com/whoindex.html). His post to cinematography.net seems a rather bizarre way of trying to promote his own system, to say the least.

Dayton Taylor

 

 

 

300' To The Gennie

Published : 4thj April 2007

500amp generator, pulling about 350a and a 300' run to the set. What size camloc should we use?

Thanks

David Winters | DP | Los Angeles |

David,

What lamps are your running? And what is the distro beyond your first D-box drop? You should be okay with banded 5-wire. [I assume you are running three phase] the voltage drop over 300` is fairly negligible, I think it's like MAYBE 12 volts, if you are pulling max load on the cable, about 300a per leg.

I'd suggest you run the genie a little hot, at about 124 v per leg should be more than fine. If your best ir worried (of if the gear owner is private) you could consider running 200' of 2/0 and the rest in 5 wire, but

I don't see that as a problem.

Jared HoyGaffer || BBE || CinematographerLos Angeles, CA

David Winters wrote :

>>500amp generator, pulling about 350a and a 300' run to the set. What >>size camloc should we use?

Assuming a 3 phase 4 wire 120/208 set up and assuming that by CamLoc you mean wire size, then 4/0 (Four ought) should be fine. Otherwise you will have a theoretical voltage drop of roughly 5.5 volts at the end of your 300' run -- assuming full 120/208VAC at the generator.

Cable and connector condition will have some effect. Often the voltage can be boosted slightly at the generator.

4/0 is generally rated at 310 amps for power transmission, but that's fairly conservative so the 350 amps is not a problem.

To calculate voltage drop :

Voltage drop = amps X feet X 18.7 (for single phase, for three phase use 21.6) divided by the cross section of the conductor in circular mills (C.M)

4/0 has a cross section of 211600 C.M. You do the math.

Brian HellerIA 600 DP

Brian Heller wrote :

>>4/0 is generally rated at 310 amps for power transmission, but that's >>fairly conservative so the 350 amps is not a problem.

I think he is talking about 350 total not per leg, more like 125 leg which is the high end for #2 banded.

4/0 is not necessary. 2/0 would be fine esp if you might go over the350amps.

John Roche, gafferNYC

John Roche wrote:

>>I think he is talking about 350 total not per leg, more like 125 leg >>which is the high end for #2

banded.

I was never very good at mind reading, which is why I included the formula.

However, my admittedly hasty calculations give a voltage drop of about 17 volts for #2 wire, and about half that or 8.5 for 2/0.

Brian HellerIA 600 DP

Hi Brian, David and Jared, hope you're doing well.

>>4/0 is generally rated at 310 amps for power transmission, but that's >>fairly conservative so the 350 amps is not a problem.

I think 5-wire banded (#2 gauge) will be fine. 150+ amps per leg. 4/0 is rated at over 300 amps, but in a single-phase 4-wire system, you have two legs of it, so 600amps. In a three-phase 5-wire system, you have three legs of it, so over 900 amps.

As to the question of camlock size, there are indeed two sizes of camlock : big and small.

We generally use the larger, 400amp rated size, but there is a smaller size available. Maybe you have a vendor trying to use this type? I can't say I'm that familiar with it, and don't know for how much power it's rated. Google doesn't seem to be helping me this morning with this.

Best,Graham FuterfasLA based DP, also former set lighting technician

www.GFuterfas.com

Graham Futerfas wrote :

>>I think 5-wire banded (#2 gauge) will be fine. 150+ amps per leg. 4/0 >>is rated at over 300 amps, but in a single-phase 4-wire system, you >>have two legs of it, so 600amps.

I agree, but the voltage drop is still over 10% for a 125 amp per leg load for a 300' run using a balanced three phase 5 wire system, so if voltage is a concern....

>>As to the question of camlock size, there are indeed two sizes of >>camlock : big and small. We generally use the larger, 400amp rated >>size, but there is a smaller size available

The standard Cam-Lock connector for film work is the middle size or 4/0 size which is rated to 400 amps/600 volts. The largest is for 350-750MCM or 690 amps. The smallest is for # 8 to #4 wire and will handle 150 amps continuous.

Try Googling: "Crouse-Hinds Cam-Lock".

Brian HellerIA 600 DP

Thanks for all of the replies.

I must make an effort to learn more about power distro, cable gauge, and voltage drop. On every job I'm always too busy lining up the first shot and getting the look underway. This is a 3 day job in Dec, old building downtown LA, third floor. Approx 100a per leg, three phase. Multiple, rock and roll strip lights (120w x 12 globes), Intelligent lights (Mac 250s and Prowash 250w), DMX controlled Kinos, and Tweeines. From the parking lot up to the 3rd floor main distro drop will be about 300', from there 25-75' to each head. Once we get a gaffer and bbe booked I won't have to deal with it, but for now I'm helping production with a budget and trying to get my complete wish list. The strip lights will be on the floor, everything else will be rigged overhead.

Will we be ok with banded 5 wire or do I need to budget 2/0 for the 300' run?

David Winters | DP | Los Angeles |

David Winter writes :

>>Will we be ok with banded 5 wire or do I need to budget 2/0 for the >>300' run?

Personally I would run the 2/0 and not worry any more about it. Cable is relatively inexpensive. When I was a gaffer I always over-cabled because it avoids any potential overheating problems from a large load.

Sometimes the load may not be as perfectly balanced as figured out to be on paper. This gives you a little head room for an unbalanced load, avoids potential overheating problems, and eliminates voltage drop which may affect any light with a ballast.

That's my 2 cents.

Jim SofrankoNY/DP

Here is a link to a voltage drop calculator;

http://www.lexproducts.com/technical/calculator.htm

And one example of entertainment feeder spec here :

http://www.lexproducts.com/technical/specsFeederCable.htm

If its new entertainment grade #2 you top out at 190amps per leg if its older welding type grade #2 more like 125 amps per leg.

With entertainment #2 At 125 amps per leg with a 300ft run you end up w/ about 112v

So can you boost voltage at genny?Are you positive you will not exceed 350amps?Are you positive its 300ft and not more?Can you be sure to balance the legs closely?

What is ambient temp? Below 30C?

If no to any above, for piece of mind go with 2/0. 2/0 will give you 115v at 300ft at 125 amps per leg w/o any voltage boost from genny.

One other thing I forgot is the return on the neutral leg. Depending on what you are running, it COULD be necessary to have a heavier gauge neutral. (Esp if you run #2 hots -- you see this in theatrical set ups w/ dimmer racks and the like, they double the size of the neutral)

My 2 or 3 cents.

Best,

John Roche, gaffer

http://www.libertylightinglimited.com/

Jim Sofranko wrote :

>>Personally I would run the 2/0 and not worry any more about it.

That would be my call also.

Too many things can come up/change at last minute and bite you in the ass.

John Roche, gaffer

I would plan on ordering maybe 100` in 2/0 and 300' in banded 5-wire and let your BBE decide what to make his juicers run. that is a good point about over gauzing the neutral if you're nervous about it.

Jared HoyLos Angeles, CAGaffer || BBE || Cinematographer818.795.3838

>>Will we be ok with banded 5 wire or do I need to budget 2/0 for the >>300' run?

David

You need to think this out a little more.

What's the lamp size in the strips... 500w each = 20a per leg.?

How many are you using?

Now how are you controlling your movers?Are you using dimmers?

100amps on a gennie gets you around 75amps full load per leg.

Time for you to get that gaffer and programmer.

Later

Tod OlivieriLD/programmerFT.Lauderdale, FL

David,

I would go with the banded. You can't exceed 500amps because of your gennie, and I think even the banded would handle that for a short period of time. 2/0 will take a lot longer to run and set up, and it doesn't sound like you're powering all that much. The strip lights are less than 2000watts, and the other lights all seem like less than 1Ks. If the voltage is low, just adjust it with one person at the gennie and one person at the end of the run with a multimeter and a walkie.

Based on a 500amp gennie, I really think 2/0 is overkill. Banded is the practical solution.

Graham FuterfasLA based DP -- Local 600 and 728

www.GFuterfas.com

 

 

 

 

360° Location Lighting

Published :

Hi,

I have a shoot coming up which is set primarily in a Cafe. We will be shooting in a real cafe. I have a bit of a lighting problem. I need to get a controllable ambient light from above. Often in these situations I would resort to bouncing a bigish HMI off the ceiling, but this shoot requires a lot of freedom of movement, a number of 360deg steadicam shots are on the cards and the space isn’t that big. What I would like to do is rig a number of daylight Kino’s from the ceiling and this is where my inexperience lets me down.

How does one go about safely doing this whilst causing the least amount of damage to the location itself?

I think the narrowest width is too wide for polecats and I suspect the weight of a Kino would probably be

too much for them anyway (might be wrong about this). I had considered at one point gaffer taping the tubes themselves to the ceiling!

Anybody got any ideas (using Kino’s or otherwise) on how to solve what I would think to be a fairly common lighting problem?

Many Thanks,

Ross McWhannellDP. Leeds, UK

Ross McWhannell wrote:

>How does one go about safely doing this whilst causing the least >amount of damage to the location itself?

Without the ability to properly build a grid of some sort, taping the fixture to the ceiling (I'm not talking about the tubes but the whole fixture) can be done for short periods of time... the safer bet is to screw them up there. Though it sounds like a lot of damage it may in fact be the least damaging, usually only four to six small holes in the ceiling per unit. You only need four holes, but it may take a few more to find a stud, or you can drill holes and put in lag bolts (for concrete) or winged screws (for drywall).

Tape can peel large sections of paint from a old paint job, especially if you use Gaffers tape. When taping with the desire to reduce damage, use 2-inch paper tape. If memory serves, I'm pretty sure I've seen crash cameras taped to plane wings.

You'd be amazed what tape can hold if you spread it out over a large enough surface area.

Piotr JagninskiGaffer / New York City

Ross depending on what type of ceiling you have, be it concrete, plaster, popcorn etc will change the way you can rig Kino or fluoro tubes the to ceiling, unproudly, I was a gaffer on the reality TV show "Room Raiders" for MTV where 360degree shooting was almost always the style of shooting, and depending on the type of ceiling, I used the options of Gaff tape, Photo Black Paper tape, and Kino clips pending on the location.

If in your cafe you can drill into the ceiling, your best bet are Kino clips and hooks to suspend your ballasts to the ceiling, taking your Kino's out of their harness and shaping the light via cinefoil, black wrap, or paper tape.

Have you considered the use of Wall speaders?

Jeremy Schonwald CLT / BB electricLA

Piotr Jagninski writes:

>I'm pretty sure I've seen crash cameras taped to plane wings. You'd be >amazed what tape can hold if you spread it out over a large enough >surface area.

Welcome to the Duct Tape BodyShop : REAL STORIES

Don't skip the rest, but down near the bottom is the highly informative,

"How to Rig Your Car to Shoot an Action Movie"

Cliff HancuffWashington, DC

Ross McWhannell wrote :

>Often in these situations I would resort to bouncing a bigish HMI off the >ceiling, but this shoot requires alot of freedom of movement

This almost never works for me as its almost impossible to control in a 360° situation.

You don't mention the height, or how much room you have to work or what stop you need. One avenue is skirted china lanterns. You can go daylight or tungsten depending on windows/gel issues. They can be easily taped up and all hooked up on dimmers. You could build large coop lights by using several lanterns in a row and skirting them, etc. O

n larger budgets I have the Key Grip gird out the room with speedrail, you end up with 4 or more vertical supports which can usually be hidden. Then you can hang whatever, wherever. You can also tape up Kino’s, sure. But you may have to skirt anyway. I often find a mixture of skirted China lights and K-5's for accent can do the trick very nicely and costs nothing. If you go this route the trick will be to control you windows relative to your sources. Assuming you will see windows.

John Roche, gaffer

NYC

John Roche wrote:

>You don't mention the height, or how much room you have to work or >what stop you need.

I do have a reasonable amount of height to play with and not a great deal of room to cover and there is a sort of archway half way down the room. I like the skirted "china's" idea, I hadn't considered that, could easily be taped up and would cause considerably less damage if they fell! Daylight balanced would be preferred as there are a number of shots involving people coming into the cafe through the main door.

Had wondered about speedrail but have not used it in anger before so don’t really know a great deal about it and am not sure how easily the supports could be hidden given the space.

As far as stop goes, I am shooting tape, so difficult to say. What is important, given the tape aspect, is to go some way to balancing the light level inside with the light outside and not have it completely white

out.

When you talk about china lanterns, are you referring to the 'industrial' variety, or the homemade paper variety? With regards the latter, is it possible to get high(ish) wattage daylight photofloods?

Ross McWhannellDP. Leeds, UK

Ross,

You can get daylight balanced photofloods from most rental companies up to 500 watt.

With regard to your options of China lanterns you have a couple of options

Chimera lanterns with the Chimera speed ring 9840 :

http://www.chimeralighting.com/products/dspspeedrings.cfm?productID=9840

JEM springball :

http://www.jemlighting.com/products.html

19 Paper lanterns with the JEM harp lampholder :

http://www.jemlighting.com/products.html

Paper lanterns with practical lampholders

The main issue for you is heat any of the first three will give you a unit that’s capable of dealing with the heat generated by a 500 watt bulb, also as an off the shelf rental they may be a cheaper option than assembling the 4 option. The last should be assembled with the heat restrictions in mind.

Of the 4 options listed above, they get lighter in descending order.

You also have the option of using Joker bug lights as your daylight source inside a lantern.

With regard to balancing the interior levels with the exterior, you could use Lee 275 Black scrim on the windows to reduce the exterior levels while allowing you to still see outside, Using the black on black scrim allows you to add ND gel to the outside of the scrim while reducing reflection issues

Or if you have the budget Acrylic ND panels.

Regards,

James Mc GuireGafferDublin

Ross Mcwhannell writes :

>Had wondered about speedrail but have not used it in anger before

There were those 28 days with Joe Pytlak years ago that proved inspiring for this use ... but I can't advise due to my lack of experience.

Cliff HancuffWashington, DC

Something to consider - if you want to rig something across the span of the room, you might be able to put a couple of vertical supports at the wall - two by fours or two by sixes or steel pipe, for instance.

There are a few times on location where I have done something like that and camouflaged the vertical support into the set with paint, wood grain contact paper, wallpaper, etc. In the case of the pipe, we painted it ugly to look like a steam radiator supply pipe(as you would fine in many old NY apartments. If you build it carefully, you can make a wooden grid that is forced up to the ceiling at the midpoint of the room you can cantilever quite far..

Obviously this is very site and scene specific, but sometimes you can get away with murder...and a well placed coat stand with a couple of coats on it can hide 3/4 of a vertical pipe pretty easily.

Mark WeingartnerLA based

Have gone to fabric/materials store w/small lighting unit in hand. Found fabric which diffused light suitably.

Purchased same & had seamstress stitch together what would/could effectively be called a tent for the whole classroom. Using timber-toppers & Bogen Auto-Poles & nylon cord w/Lowell Tota-Lights & gelled Fluorescents (mostly as fill), worked very, very well.

Producer was happy as it looked right or real & we could pan everywhere & get f/2.8-4 split. (Luckily room was w/o windows.) Shooting classroom was easy for all 3 days & consistent regardless of time of day, etc.

Have used this technique elsewhere but w/ROSCO sheets stapled to wood slats or hung over cubicles, etc. for office environment. And then a little practical light really sparkles (pun intended) in such space.

Don Daso

ACME Film & VideoCharlotte NC

Ross McWhannell wrote :

>"I have a shoot coming up which is set primarily in a Cafe..."

What are the Cafe's dimensions? What is the ceiling made of (cement/drywall/drop-ceiling)? What is the budget?

On a Champagne budget you could either uses Kino-flo's 'Bag-o-lite' (should keep the bulbs from raining down on your talent's heads) or a small Fisher Balloon (either in Tungsten or HMI).

On a Peanut-Butter budget a bank of china-balls with photo-floods lightly secured to the ceiling (if they fall the ball will absorb most of the impact).

Matt EfsicStudent DP, Brooks Institute of PhotographyVentura, CA

Something else to consider would be in addition to what you can rig overhead--to be prepared to work something hand-held from the floor, either with batteries or a cable. I was running around today on set behind a steady-cam with a 2' 4 bank Kino on a short arm with some light-grid.

Works great!

I have also been using the LED Lite-Panels as well. As a matter of fact today we taped two together, and the grip brothers made a nice mini 1x1 chimera with different diffusions I can Velcro on or off that is completely powered by the batteries on the panel-lites. By utilizing handheld floor lighting--we eliminated the need to bring the overall ambience up as much as we would have liked--and we got some light in the eyes. All the best!

Mike AmbroseGafferLA Based/Currently in SF

Piotr Jagninski writes :

>You'd be amazed what tape can hold if you spread it out over a large >enough surface area.

Yes, but it's the way that it slowly insidiously creeps back off the surface at an unperceivable rate. Then BANG! something's on the floor.

Clive Mitchell

http:/www.bigclive.com

Thanks to everyone for their replies. I think I will be going with the skirted “china’s” route. probably of the semi-homemade variety.

Ideally I want 500W bulbs in a fairly big lanterns (19" or there about). However I am having difficulty finding proper lampholders to keep the bulb in the middle, even tho they will mostly be static I am reluctant to put such a hot bulb in a paper housing without something to keep it away from the paper (am I over reacting here?).

I am also having problems sourcing 500W and 250W daylight photofloods,

Does anyone know where I can find decent lampholders and daylight photofloods in the UK?

Many thanks again.

Ross McWhannellDP. Leeds, UK

Ross Mcwhannell writes :

>I am also having problems sourcing 500W and 250W daylight >photofloods,

>Does anyone know where I can find decent lampholders and daylight >photofloods in the UK?

I hate to have my contribution be about what you should not do, but if by "photoflood" you mean incandescent bulbs ... be aware, the colour temp of these daylight bulbs are about 4300 degrees, when brand new. Hour by hour of use they drop in colour temperature, until they burn out in about 6 hours.

Keeping all the bulbs equally "aged", so they match colour is just one of your concerns.

Six hour life means carrying a bunch of spares. If you intend to keep a colour balance, you have to change all the bulbs if one blows.

I wish I could be of more help than just saying "not that".

Cliff HancuffWashington, DC

I'm looking at doing a similar setup in a few weeks, and one of the things I'm looking at is putting full spectrum compact fluorescents in big china balls. Two or three 60Ws in a 24" ball (or each in a smaller separate one) would be the rough equivalent of 600W incandescent, and should burn cool enough to be safe, they come in temps up to 6000K, the bulbs are built to last, and have electronic ballasts which screw into ordinary household sockets.

Has anyone tried this? Am I missing an obvious down side?

Steve MilliganOperator/AnimatorChapel Hill, North Carolina

I'm not sure what the standard is in the UK, but here in the US I take the guts of a standing lamp fixture -- a threaded hollow rod with a screw-on lamp socket on one end -- and wrap a paper lantern around it. A little bailing wire (thin gauge wire for holding things in place) securely mounts the lantern in place and then I can clamp the rod wherever I want using a maffer or other clamp.

I like this rig because I can even put the lantern sideways without the bulb slipping to one side.

Mitch GrossNYC DP

Steve

One thing to watch is when you contain--even "full spectrum" flo's in a confined space, over drive them, or wrap them in gel, the heat accumulation will lead to an intensity in the green spike. Just keep an eye on it and keep the flo’s ventilated as well as possible.

Mike AmbroseGafferLA Based

> I wish I could be of more help than just saying "not that".

Its true these bulbs have a short life and are not ideal for certain projects, but I think you may be overstating the problem. I use these all the time. If I was putting this up for a week long shoot, I would attack the problem another way. I don't think you are going to see significant colour shifting between bulbs, or to put it another way who cares if they're 4500K or ones 4250K. Swap 'em out at lunch if you have to.

Other options include using 85ND on windows if you have to gel anyway, then you can use tungsten bulbs.

Buy porcelain sockets, wire and hang in centre of paper lantern (bulb cantered), secured so they can't slip etc. Be sure to use appropriate size lantern, i.e. don't use a 12 inch w/ a 500 watt bulb.

Use paper for this application, chimera or jem are too bulky and heavy for this, pain to rig where you have nothing to rig from etc....much easier to tape up paper china lanterns, cheaper to boot. IMHO. This is the classic doc approach...

Someone mentioned having Lights on floor, like a few Kino’s or what not. Not a bad idea if you need to fill in eyes. Maybe an obie or another china ball on a fishpole/dimmer rig (this works great). Keep the lights as low as you can- high for wide shots, then they can be lowered just out of frame when you move in for coverage. Lots of options here, depending on scene specifics, coverage, time, etc etc. Mount w/ enough extra zip cord so you can clothes pin up or down as necessary.

If going daylight try to select correct wattage so you don't have to dim too much and change colour temp.

Anyway my 2 cents.

John Roche, GafferNYC

>...one of the things I'm looking at is putting full spectrum compact >fluorescents in big china balls. Two or three 60Ws... would be the rough >equivalent of 600W incandescent, and...

Yes, I have.

I've tried this using four Ott Lite 20 watt swirl bulbs (5500K, 95 CRI) and three single male/twin female adaptors so I could put four in one bulbs in one socket assembly.

I found out that 1.) these bulbs aren't designed for on set use – they are easily damaged despite costing close to $40 each) and 2.) the resulting Chinese lantern is significantly heavier than a traditional one using a photoflood.

However, they don't get hot and the quality of the light is very nice.

I once considered getting a three 4 bulb bathroom vanity bars and mounting them together to make my own relatively inexpensive wall-o-lite using compact fluorescents. But 12 of these bulbs would cost close to $500 which really discouraged me from trying this.

Jessica GallantLos Angeles based Director of PhotographyWest Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List

http://www.cinematography.net

If you want to make daylight-balanced China balls, try these new low cost HMI units from a company called Alzo.

http://alzovideo.com/alzo_800_BB_hmi_cool_lite.htm

Note: I have not used these lights but saw them recently at a trade show. I don't know if they are designed to work on anything but US standard 60hz/120v power. This is a very new product. But hey, only $111 for an HMI and replacement bulbs for $25 each!

Mitch GrossNYC DP

John Roche writes :

>Its true these bulbs have a short life and are not ideal for certain >projects, but I think you may be overstating the problem.

I think you're probably right.

As a still photographer I found great solstice in having every one of my lights within 50 degrees any other. I can't say this involved a terrible amount of work, other than the month's of testing before deciding which brand of lights to buy. No manufacturer, regardless of price (my testing included the most expensive brands), held a candle to an uncommon Japanese manufacturer, Comet.

Colour accuracy, like lens sharpness, isn't something you can have too much of. You can always change it, but you can't add it if it's not there.

(Yes, that statement is flawed, but you know what I mean)

Ross,

Photofloods, if what you mean are these incandescent bulbs, are far more likely to be found in photo stores, than cine suppliers.

Cliff HancuffWashington, DC

> I'm looking at doing a similar setup in a few weeks, and one of the >things I'm looking at is putting full spectrum compact fluorescents in >big china balls.

> Am I missing an obvious down side?

Only that I'd ask myself with the fluoro tubes would I always really need the china balls.

Sam Wellsfilm/.../nj

>Hour by hour of use they drop in colour temperature, until they burn out >in about 6 hours.

Does the same apply to the tungsten variety? are the daylight bulbs just tungsten bulbs with tinted glass? its looking increasingly likely that I will have to get the windows.

Ross McWhannellDP. Leeds, UK

Ross Mcwhannell writes :

>Does the same apply to the tungsten variety? are the daylight bulbs just >tungsten bulbs with tinted glass? Itslooking increasingly likely that I will >have to get the windows.

Tungsten/halogen are relatively colour stable, compared to incandescent (then again, so is everything). Both the incandescent and tungsten daylight bulbs are tinted blue.

I'm backing off on significance the problems incandescent have, in your circumstance. I'm now thinking my pickiness is more than you need to worry about.

There have been other suggestions that "look" pretty good, from my office chair.

EVERY shoot involves "going with the budget", from Waterworld (well ... maybe not) to home videos.

Sorry for the confusion.

Cliff HancuffWashington, DC

There's no law that says you have to use photofloods in a China Ball. I've rigged FEV (200w bulbs for inkies) and many other quartz lights inside lanterns. Just be careful that the bulb stays mounted to the middle and that you use a lantern large enough to handle the heat. You could even spray the paper with fire retardant. I recall reading in American Cinematographer that Michael Balhaus once used a 10k globe inside a huge paper lantern (I think it was for Age of Innocence).

Just be sure that you're very confident in what you're doing or you'll start a fire.

Mitch GrossNYC DP

>"I've rigged FEV (200w bulbs for inkies) and many other quartz lights >inside lanterns".

Excuse me Mitch but if you put a 500W photoflood bulb into the ball, you get a much much larger source that you will then diffuse, that with FEV.

Balls with FEVs are a bit harsher in the light they produce than balls with photofloods. This shows more clearly if you use just one ball for your shot. (it is like adding dual layers of diffusion in front of a freshnel light - the layers must be separated if you ask for softer but still directional light)

Best Regards

Argyris TheosDoPAthens Greece

One other thing to think about is reflections in the windows. If you don't have enough ceiling height, it may be virtually impossible to hang much from the ceiling.

Mike AmbroseGafferLA Based

Ross McWhannell wrote :

>Does the same apply to the tungsten variety

The big difference is bulb life. The tungsten will last the whole shoot, no question. Blues, depending on wattage are rated 3-6 hours. If changing is a hassle you can double bulb (easier w/ the larger lanterns) and have an a/b wiring.

One other trick that can be useful is you can line the inside of the ball w/ alum foil. Not the whole thing of course but say 1/3 to 1/2 - this works good, for example, if you have one near a wall and don't want spill, makes it directional, so to speak.

As someone mentioned be aware of window reflection issues. Rosocescrim inside, gel out side could solve. Of course, any lighting might be problem relative to windows, not just china lanterns. Sometime a

properly place long horizontal teaser of duvatyne can solve the problem.

John Roche, GafferNYC

 

 

 

435 Shutter phase

I am told there is a 3rd party EPROM for the Arri 435 that will allow user control of the shutter/movement phasing through the use of the RU-1 controller. (a la "..Private Ryan") Is anyone familiar with this "chip" and who is making it or where one can purchase it? I know several rental houses in LA are providing this as an option, though with many, many caveats. Has anyone here used it? Inquiring minds want to know. --

Rod Williams First Camera Assistant Petaluma, CA USA

Rod Williams wrote :

> I am told there is a 3rd party EPROM for the Arri 435 that will allow user control of the >shutter/movement phasing through the use of the RU-1 controller. (a la "..Private >Ryan") Is anyone familiar with this "chip" and who is making it or where one can >purchase it?

I have used it on a couple of jobs. It is easy to set up after the special EPROM chip is installed in the camera. You have to shoot some tests to get a feel for the results, as of course you can not see the result while you are shooting either in the viewfinder or in the video tap image.

The smearing effect works best with a a few bright items in the frame against a generally dark background. That way you can see the smears of the bright items against the contrast of the darker background. If you have a bright background, the smears will be hard to see, if not even visible.

The camera makes scary juddering noises while you are changing the shutter / movement phase while the camera is running, but Arri assured me that everything was OK, and indeed it was. It sounds like grinding parts, but it isn't, you hope!

I would recommend that you remove the special EPROM chip after using the camera for that job as you wouldn't want the smears when you didn't expect them.

One way to test to see if the system is working while on set is to use a "cine strobe" light to view the phase position of the shutter relative to the film movement while the camera is running. Of course you can not see this relationship while the camera is stopped because in the Arri 435, the shutter and film movement are driven by separate motors and will freewheel relative to each other when the camera is stopped. But, it is this separation that enables this smearing "trick"

One word of warning, when using the cine strobe as illumination when the camera is running, it will

appear that the shutter is not moving. DO NOT forget yourself and stick your finger into the lens opening when the camera is running! The high speed spinning mirror / shutter will chop the end of it off, even though under the strobe light it appears to be stationary. Ouch!

Have fun!

Bill Bennett DoP Los Angeles

There is a "maintenance mode" that lets you put the shutter and pulldown out of sync.

I suspect that this is what you're referring to.

I'll leave it for someone more technically capable to explain how to do this

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKSTS

Director of Photography EU based CML List Owner & Sysadmin

Geoff writes :

>There is a "maintenance mode" that lets you put the shutter and pulldown out of sync

With respect, this isn't quite correct. There is a maintenance or service mode which will let you run either just the shutter or just the movement on their own but not together, out of phase.

Separate from this service mode trick, there is also (as Rod Williams first posted) an Eprom for the camera which, in conjunction with the RU1, lets you alter the shutter/pulldown relationship, in shot, by anything up to 170 degrees in either direction. This chip was written by Arri Austria (the camera's designers) at the request of Arri Media some years ago. As is the way with software, this is now out and about in the big wide world.

The caveats I would stipulate when using this software are: 1. Test to detirmine what setting gives you the effect you want. and: 2. Be aware that this is a special version of the V1.57 eprom, so any features introduced since then are missing. These include refinements to the ramping behaviour and the Integrated Capping Shutter.

I think Bill is being a little overcautious in saying you should remove the phase chip when shooting normally. With the RU1 disconnected you are definitely safe. When the phase shift is active the whole display flashes, so it's pretty obvious.

Hope this helps,

John Duclos (Technical Manager) ARRI MEDIA 4-5 Airlinks. Spitfire Way, Heston, Middx TW5 9NR, England

http://www.ARRI.COM

John Duclos wrote :

>With respect, this isn't quite correct.

I stand corrected

I was also speaking to Simon C today and he corrected me as well.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKSTS

Director of Photography EU based CML List Owner & Sysadmin

I recently used a special eprom chip while shooting in europe that left the shutter completly open during shooting. Effectively, it was as if I had no shutter. We would line up the shot, then the assistant would punch in a specific combination of buttons and the mirror would rotate out of the way of the film plane. Of course we could not use the reflex viewing nor the tap while shooting. All of this was done without the RU unit. After arriving home I inquired about the chip being available in the states, and was told by someone at Arri the following:

"We are very concerned that someone may leave the special EPROM in, and then shoot something without realizing what a crazy effect they will get, so we make this EPROM only available when customers specifically ask for it. I believe that in the US, at least CSC in NY, the Clairmonts, Otto Nemenz and The Camera House in LA should have it or be able to get a hold of it. "

So, I beleive that Arri is the manufacturer and you should be able to get it at most larger rental houses.

CMLers Many thanks for the (as usual) friendly and frighteningly knowledgeable response to my inquiry about the shutter phasing technique with the Arri 435. I've passed the info along to a local Arri rental house here in San Francisco and they've ordered the chip to install in one of their cameras. They were so happy to find a use for the old RU-1 in the back of the accessory drawer. I'm looking forward to shooting some test soon. Thanks again. --

Rod Williams First Camera Assistant Petaluma, CA USA

I haven't read all of the message concerning this thread but you don't need a special Eprom to run the camera with the mirror _not_ turning. It's a diagnostic setting, that also happens to give the temperature of the camera! :-) Perhaps this diagnostic feature was somehthing that was added to later Eproms. There is also a not very useful for us setting where the mirror spins without the film movement turning.

I don't have the button sequence handy but will look for it ....

Mako Koiwai

>There is also a not very useful for us setting where the mirror spins without the film >movement

turning.

Mark "RP IS still viable, darnit" Weingartner

VFX and Lighting for Motion Pictures LA based but in NYC

As several poeple have mentioned, it is possible to run the camera movement only without the need for special eproms, however the eprom method is a lot better. Consider the following:

With the service mode method you have to line-up your shot, remove the lens, move the shutter out of the way manually (naughty), replace the lens and then shoot with no look through or video assist. This route is all or nothing, you don't get to introduce it during the shot. Also, because pulldown is pretty rapid on the 435 you don't get as much smear as you might imagine. With the eprom, at greater phase shift angles, the shutter is covering some of the static part of the exposue which helps exaggerate the smear effect.

Cheers,

John Duclos (Technical Manager) ARRI MEDIA

In projection, if the shutter does not cover the entire pulldown of the film, the smear is called "travel ghost". The amount and direction of the streaking will depend upon whether the shutter timing is early or late, and the shutter angle. Most 35mm and 70mm projectors use "Geneva" or "Maltese Cross" intermittent movements to achieve the pulldown, which typically require 90-degree shutter blades to block the light during pulldown.

John Pytlak

 

 

 

Problems Using A 45 Degree Shutter With Monitors

Hi All,

I'm thinking that this is a total pipe dream. I have a studio job coming up this week using the SR3 - I want to use the 45 degree shutter for the crispy look. The only drag is that there is a small (8") practical TV monitor that is part of the set. For the 2 shots that it appears on camera, it is functional with an image on the screen.

Is there any way to shoot with the 45 degree shutter and also shoot this standard NTSC monitor? A slight roll bar is acceptable to the director. Because the time needed to shoot a test is not available we may just comp-in the image on the TV and motion track it for the brief appearances it will make.

Also, there is going to be a strip of 4' x2 household fluoros mounted in the set (w/Optima 32's). Should I worry about flicker since these aren't electronic ballasts?

Any thoughts would help,

Thanks

Jeremy Benning

Couldn't you just shoot those two shots of the monitor at 144 degrees, which will give you the smallest roll bar at 24 fps?

The problem with shooting HMI's and fluorescents at 45 degrees is not flicker, but exposure. As long as you are running at 24 fps crystal, you will not get a variation per frame that will appear as flicker even at 45 degrees. HOWEVER, while at 180 degrees, you generally record about 2 and 1/2 light pulses per frame, and 2 pulses at 144 degrees, and 1 pulse at 72 degrees (I think), at 45 degrees, you are recording less than a full pulse per frame. What this means in practical terms is that each time you roll the camera, you might catch that pulse at any point of its wave -- so sometimes you risk getting in sync with the bottom of the wave, causing underexposure.

I might have this wrong, but I suggest that you don't rely on these fluorescents to provide any sort of key exposure if you run the camera with a 45 degree shutter.

David Mullen

Another problem with monitors and moving cameras is the shearing of the TV image as the scanlines go down the screen. It could be that a tighter shutter angle would help this, but its hard to judge without testing. If in doubt, avoid fast pans.

If there is the possibility of doing the TV monitor inserts in post, it would make life much easier for you and them to either turn the monitor off, or ideally replace it with backlit blue/green in a monitor shell, particularly if anything is likely to come in front of the screen. Don't use a blue feed to the monitor - this is worse than having the monitor off, because you then have roll, shear and spill to deal with in post, as well as an unsteady image for motion-tracking purposes.

Does anyone have experience of using synchronised 24fps displays? I wonder why this technique isn't more widely used for shooting screens - it must be cheaper than replacing things in post, although you don't get the luxury of editorial control.

Tom DebenhamComputer Film Company, London

While we're on the topic of shooting monitors I'm wondering what determines whether you see the scan line in the viewfinder at the same time as the film image. A few years ago I shot several monitors with a Panavision 16 system and thought the line was moved off frame only to find it in plain view when we went to transfer. I was told later had we shot with an SR we would have "seen" the line if the film were seeing it. If that's true then what is the difference in the viewing systems?What about Aaton?

Thanks,Randy

It's actually quite simple. What you need to remember is that your eye and the film don't see the same thing time wise. Your eye sees the pulldown interval between film frames. Assuming the camera is synched (sunk?) with the monitor, it all boils down to whether the monitor is displaying an interlaced picture or not.

If the display is interlaced, then what you see is what you get, effectively. Your eye sees 1 field, say the even numbered lines, and the film sees the other; the odd ones. So, lose the bar in the finder and you've lost it on film.

If the display is non-interlaced, then the worst image in the finder will give you the best image on film. This must be what happened in your case. By losing the bar in the finder you had, in fact, put it into your film frame.

I'd love to be able to tell you that the only camera to use for this is the SR, but I can't.

Any camera with a reflex viewing system should behave this way.

Hope this helps,

John Duclos (Technical Manager)ARRI MEDIA

Yes and No. depends on what frame rate you are shooting also. As with Computer monitors one tends to shoot at 1/2 the refresh rate (which is usually around 75 hz) for about 37.5 f.P.S.. I've done this, moved the roll bar off frame in the viewfinder, and had no roll bar on the film. I believe Computer monitors are Progressive and not interlaced. I've done it this way, no problems.

If I were to check my source info ( the Arri 35 book by Jon Fauer) it would tell me that shooting an NTSC monitor, at approximately 29.97 (playback from consumer vcr's tend to be slightly slower) with a 180 degree shutter will give me no roll bar when I position the roll bar off the screen in the eyepiece. However shooting at 24 FPS ( 23.976) with a 144 degree shutter will give me no roll bar when I see them on the T.V. Screen. Pages 190 and 191.Tote that book around a lot, excellent resource.

P.S. As John alluded to, the rules in the book still apply even when using an Aaton.

Steven GladstoneBrooklyn, Based Cinematographer

This part is incorrect based on my own personal experience. The 144 degree shutter angle merely reduces the size of the roll bar to a thin line -- itstill rolls without a film/video sync box. And at that speed, you actually have THREE roll bars -- either you can set it with the sync box so that youhave only one visible in the middle, or instead two visible, one at the top and one at the bottom third of the screen.

The only way to have NO roll bar is to shoot at the NTSC speed (29.whatever) or use 24 frame video monitors.

Maybe I'm wrong and that the key is getting precisely 144 degrees in order to have one roll bar instead of three, but the sync box is still necessaryto stop it from drifting and to phase the bar out.

However, in wide shots, just using a 144 degree shutter angle gives acceptable results since the roll bar is so small.

David MullenCinematographer / L.A.

 

 

 

 

48 Hour Film Project Advice

Published : 26th December 2005

Hey guys & gals,

This will be my first time shooting a video for the 48 hour film project

(http://www.48hourfilm.com/) this Friday & Saturday. Would anyone like to share advice who's previously shot a film under these conditions? I'll be shooting 24p on an XL2 & editing in FCP. I have a dolly, tripod, foam core, small lighting kit & a few theatre lights to my disposal.

Cheers,

Dom ZanghiAC/Sports Camera Op. (& now a 48 hour film DP)Philadelphia

I helped a friend out on his 48 hour film last year. It was a lot of fun. One thing that helped him immensely was having the editor on set with us. That way he was able to digitize tapes and edit on the shoot day. Every minute counts in these things. The next helper was decent sound: a good mike, a boom, a field mixer, an XLR adapter for the XL2, and someone who had some experience with the field mixer. If you don't have a mixer set the XLR adapter to record on both channels, then have one input set to 10 and the other set to 5 or 6. Then if some dialogue is blown out at 10, then the one at 5 or 6 will hopefully be okay.

The thing I couldn't believe on our shoot was the monitor the D.P. had. We had a lot of grip and electric equipment and everything else we would need. But the NTSC monitor was a piece of crap and not calibrated. I kept offering to run home and grab mine, but the director and producer kept looking at me as if it didn't matter. Of course, there turned out to be major exposure and shot to shot matching problems that they didn't notice till the next day. But the story was good and it was edited well. They won the prize for best film. Good luck.

Sean MeredithDirector/EditorLos Angeles

Dom Zanghi wrote:

> Hey guys & gals,> This will be my first time shooting a video for the 48 hour film project

>(http://www.48hourfilm.com/) this Friday & Saturday. Would anyone like >to share advice who's previously shot a film under these conditions?

The key factor is getting a Team.

Are you directing? or Just shooting?

Look is minimally important to the contest, so is sound.

What they are looking for is an interesting idea.

They do not want a polished film. Acting is not important. Just an interesting idea. If you take the idea and develop it, and create a finished film, you will lose.

Do everything you can to make the interesting idea the most important thing, don't surround it with a well made film, or the judges won't be able to focus on the interesting idea. So just have an interesting idea, surrounded by a bad film, and you have a chance.

The more outrageous and ridiculous idea, the better.

They are not looking for polished films, they are looking for films that look like they were made by people who never made a movie before.

These are just my opinions, I'm not terribly bitter about it.

By the way, if you aren't selected to be in the final screenings, then they don't want you to come to watch the winners. The Screenwriter and Lead actress went to the screening, (I was working couldn't go), and they were point blank asked by the organizers why they bothered to come.

These are my experiences from entering in the New York section last year, so perhaps different areas run differently.

Discussion along the lines of my comments is probably better suited to Chat. I hope you find this information useful.

Steven GladstoneCML East Coast List AdministratorGladstone Films

www.gladstonefilms.com

I've been involved for the past 2 years here in Los Angeles. Best advice I can give you. Keep it simple, w/o making it appear simple? Lock your locations and have back ups for your backups.

We have done pretty well on the films we've shot, winning best of last year. All that can be see at www.genesisfilms.com.

Try to have an idea of what you want before you shoot - so your editor doesn’t go insane.

I like to rent an RV and park in front of the submission place (usually a pub) and put my editor in there -=- turn in your first cut, as soon as its done. Then tweak - you can always replace with new cuts up until

the deadline.

Jared HoyBBE / GafferLos Angeles, California

I've shot three projects for 48 hr. film project type competitions.

In Los Angeles, the emphasis seems to be on production value and many of the winning projects have sort of a Saturday Night Live sketch comedy feel to them.

On such a short time schedule, the finished project is only going to be a strong as it's weakest link. In general, everyone has to work quickly, efficiently and cooperatively, pitching in where ever help is needed. Don't allow yourself to get upset over little things - the other teams probably have bigger things to worry about than your team if you're properly prepared.

First and foremost, keep it simple. Good audio and proper exposures are a must - there won't be time to correct either in post. Get sufficient coverage for the editor to work with, but not so much that it hinders your time starved editor at 3 a.m.

The more equipment you have, the more you will be tempted to use but balance this out with knowing that you're probably going to wish you had brought something or had access to some equipment that you won't have time or the opportunity to get. Double and triple check everything beforehand to make sure it's in good working order and properly calibrated.

Make sure you cell phone is charged - you never know when they're going to get stuck on a prop, location or something else that you and you alone will have access to. Also make sure you get a good night's sleep the night before, and remember to eat something and drink water on set.

One of the projects I shot, "Captain Freedom: Still At Large" (shot under a pseudonym), can be viewed here:

http://www.instantfilms.com/index.html

"Powerful Romantic" (which received Best Cinematography despite being shot with fluorescent work lights) can be viewed here :

http://www.instantfilms.com/open.html

Jessica GallantLos Angeles based Director of PhotographyWest Coast Systems Admin, Cinematography Mailing List

http://www.cinematography.net

Hey Dom

I had work on a project like that but It was shot on film, the team had 48 hours for prep. and 48 to shoot, process, transfer and edit. The short is 8 minutes long.

It wasn’t a nightmare, just a little long.

If you shoot, try to scout the locations and draw some lighting diagrams so your gaffer can pre-light for you the next location and you only arrive to work on details.

There is always a good dolly move that can work great instead of 6 or 7 setups.

Don’t waste time arguing for a shot, you can go for the Oscar in another job.

Have something to eat like granola bars or something like that, there is a strong chance that you wont have time to seat for lunch or when you get to the catering service at the end of the day they will only have water left.

Arrive earlier than anyone, for sure you will leave at the end.

Keep focused, don’t panic on the time, never check the clock, just do what you know and the most important advice : have lots of fun, if you don’t smile you wont get it.

Miguel Del Valle PDoP. E.P.

www.esarcine.comMexico City Acapulco.

 

 

 

50-60 htz Flicker

Published : 2nd July 2007

I just returned from shooting musical performances in large venues inEurope. Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam and Luxemburg.

I was shooting with a HVX200 setup for a 720/24pn project. Film Cam and shutter angle at 180.

In a couple of the venues, I got flicker from the carbon-arc follow spot. I tried every thing I could think of and couldn't get rid of it. Would I have needed a PAL version of the HVX200 that was a 720/25pn project? Then done some sort of frame-rate conversion back home to use the material in a 24frame project?

All the venues were 220 - 50 hertz countries. Why would the carbon-arc flicker in some, but not in others?

Working backstage under fluorescent lights, I had no problem. (although under mercury-vapour fixtures, the flicker was really bad.

Jim DollarhideDirector/Cinematographer

601-853-4252

http://www.dollarhide.net

If you set the shutter speed at multiples of 1/50 of a second, you will not have a problem. Most NTSC cameras do not have a 1/50th setting, so you must use 1/100th.

What you thought were carbon arcs were most likely CSI or HMI lamps, discharge sources, like mercury vapours, carbon arc followspots were rare 20 years ago and are practically non-existent today.

Where you thought you were ok, like backstage, there must have been either

1/- some incandescent light (or daylight) that was filling in or

2/- the fluorescents were wired on different phases, which would have cancelled out flicker to some extent.

Unfortunately, there's no way to fix this after the fact, and of course you can't see it on LCD monitors which don't have rasters. An expensive lesson, but you won't ever do it again. I have shot in 30 countries that are 220/50hz (even some that are 100/50hz, like the eastern half of Japan) and have never had a problem: Whenever I see any non incandescent source, fluorescents, neon, mercury or sodium vapour, I set my shutter to 1/100th.

Similarly, if you shoot a PAL camera in the US or other 60hz country, set the shutter to 1/60th. All PAL cameras have this capability.

Before you go, check your voltage/current at

http://www.roadogz.com/productionoffice/voltage/index.html

or better yet, my favourite

http://www.kropla.com/electric2.htm

Where they list all the plugs you'll find as well.

Bill Megalos

Jim, in general when you use a non-PAL framerate in a PAL country you've got to set your shutter at either 1/50 (if possible) or 1/100 sec.

I believe you'd need to set your film-style shutter at 172.8 degrees to get a 1/50 shutter speed at 24p. Does the DVX provide that setting?

I'm not an expert on this, but in theory you should start having flicker problems at higher shutter speeds because at either 24fps or 30fps your framerate will be out of phase with the mains frequency and the higher the shutter speed, the more your exposures will visibly reflect that phase shift.

I suppose it's possible that the fluorescents had just enough phosphor lag to minimize your flicker problem, whereas carbon arcs and mercury-vapour lights have no lag -- they're either on or off. The

length of their "on" cycle (with each alternation of the AC power) may vary with lamp temperature, voltage, spacing of arc carbons and so forth. Those are just guesses -- hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in...

Dan DrasinProducer/DPMarin County, CA

Daniel Drasin wrote:

>>I believe you'd need to set your film-style shutter at 172.8 degrees to >>get a 1/50 shutter speed at 24p. Does the DVX provide that setting?

Provide, no , but can you get there, or very close, yes. In an HVX shutter ca be shifted up or down from 180 by degree increments.Mark Smith DP NYC

>>I was shooting with a HVX200 setup for a 720/24pn project. Film >>Cam and shutter angle at 180.

Interestingly, if you turn the shutter "off" in an HVX200, what you get, in any frame rate other than 60, is 1/50 second. This was apparently done to accommodate shooting under 50 Hz lighting, maybe because the HVX200 didn't support 50 fps.

If that doesn't solve the problem, you can use the SynchroScan settings in the menu to find the correct shutter angle, as slow as close to 1/24" (24.7) in 24PN mode. About 345 degrees would be close to 1/25 and about 172.5 would be close to 1/50. Remember, the HVX200 is always based on 59.94 Hz so the numbers don't start as integers, and the SynchroScan granularity is only 0.5 degrees, so you can only get close.

Depending on your motion content, one of these should work.

I ran into this problem from a client a few years ago and there was a tool in After Effects that was supposed to reduce the effect. Unfortunately, my version was too old to include it so I had to apply some frame blending to somewhat reduce the flicker. Sorry, I don't remember the name of the tool.

A quick Google search for "After Effects, flicker, tool" turned up this one.

http://www.genarts.com/sapphire-ae.html

I'm sure there must be more by now.

At the time (2003), Teranex (now Silicon Optix) was working on a flicker reduction filter for their boxes. You might check to see who has a box with that software in your area.

Cheers,

Charles R. (C.R.) Caillouet, Jr.

Vision Unlimited/LA

Prairieville, LAHD production technical support since 1987...searching for the right tools for the job...

>>Jim, in general when you use a non-PAL framerate in a PAL country >>you've got to set your shutter at either 1/50 (if possible) or 1/100 sec. I >>believe you'd need to set your film-style shutter at 172.8 degrees to get >>a 1/50 shutter speed at 24p. Does the DVX provide that setting?

Don,

The HVX200 has different syncro-scan settings, depending on whether you are in Film Cam or Video Cam mode.

In Film Cam, you can get 172.5 or 173.0. Tried those. In Video Cam, you can get 172.1, 172.9 or 173.8 Tried those. In fact I scrolled through all the shutter degree settings in both modes and could not eliminate it. The speed of the flicker would change, but not go away.

The HVX shutter speed settings are 1/24, 1/60, 1/120. No 1/50 or 100th available.

Bill Megalos emailed me off the list, and suggested that I would not be able to see it on an LCD, but I could in fact see it on my LCD. It was very apparent.

I agree with his assessment of the type of instrument -- I guess I just have the name carbon-arc stuck in my head as a generic term for follow spots.

Anyway, like I said in my original post, I tried every setting the camera offered, but couldn't get rid of it. What baffles me is that I got in two arenas, but not in two others. And under the backstage fluorescents, I had no problems in three of the arenas, but had it quite bad in one.

The idea of daylight or incandescent "filling in" was not the case. Thelighting was bright and uniformly fluorescent.

Anyway, I guess the lack of 1/50th or 1/100th is what killed me.

Jim DollarhideDirector/Cinematographer601-853-4252

http://www.dollarhide.net

I agree with Bill that the follow spot was most likely not a carbon arc. Long throw follow spots are either xenon or HMI. Xenon's are DC, so they don't flicker. If it was an HMI follow spot and your camera was set correctly to shoot under 50Hz discharge lighting there is one other, remote, possibility. Some electronic HMI ballasts offer three output settings - flicker free, 50 Hz, AND 60 Hz. It is possible that the follow spot was incorrectly set to 60 Hz.

On a more general note, I have a joke theory about filmmaking. Filmmaking is 90 percent logistics. Of the remaining 10 percent, it's 90 percent calibration (as in this case, and especially true in multi-camera live events). If the logistics and calibration are well executed we're left the remaining 1 percent to be creative. Of course, most of us love our jobs and chose our careers because of the last one percent! :)

Stephen Olsen

Lighting TechnicianLA

Jim Dollarhide wrote :

>>The HVX shutter speed settings are 1/24, 1/60, 1/120. No 1/50 or >>100th available.

1/50th is the default "off" shutter speed.

>>... suggested that I would not be able to see it on an LCD, but I could in >>fact see it on my LCD.

There are different types of "flicker". You cannot see interlace flicker on a progressive display like most LCD's, but a fast LCD will definitely show you embedded lighting flicker because the video amplitude is actually changing from frame to frame.

>>What baffles me is that I got in two arenas, but not in two others.

It sounds like you had mixed frequency sources. This is like trying to use SynchroScan or ClearScan to remove the bars in two computer displays in the same scene. If one of your sources was typical 50 Hz and the other running from a generator or crystal controlled source at another frequency (like 60, for example), you couldn't take both out. That sounds like it could be your problem. It could have been from advanced lighting instruments, like the new projector/camera/lighting combos.

After the fact, it's pretty hard to establish. Even on site, it is often hard to isolate the problem fixtures. Sometimes you can stop down and scan the instruments to see which ones flicker differently, but there may not be much you can do in a large venue when you don't have control of the facility. If you are setting up a shot, you can sometimes flag the offending fixtures, or just overpower them. Even then, the lighter shadows can flicker on you.

Cheers,

Charles R. (C.R.) Caillouet, Jr.

Vision Unlimited/LAPrairieville, LAHD production technical support since 1987...searching for the right tools for the job...

>>In a couple of the venues, I got flicker from the carbon-arc follow >>spot. I tried every thing I could think of and couldn't get rid of it

Jim, are you sure that the follow spot was carbon arc? Arcs are, in my experience, run off direct current, and the flicker associated with carbon-arcs in the past was visible to the eye, where the flame is interrupted due to broken or wet carbons. If it was rectified DC, then I suppose it's possible that the flame was following a 50hz cycle, but it doesn't make sense to me. Carbon-arc lamps are literally carbons burning a housing. Other types of follow spots like Super Troupers have xenon lamps, supplied by rectified DC, using a ballast. I've never seen flicker from a xenon unit. However, other lamps, like the Softsun, which are supplied by rectified DC using a ballast, can flicker and have flicker free versions.

Fixing the shutter at 1/50th should have done the trick, or true 24fps and a 172.8 degree shutter (not possible with this camera) or 25fps (also not possible with your version of the camera) would also have

worked.

The fluorescents more than likely had high-frequency ballasts, i.e. were flicker free.

Ted HayashLos Angeles, CA

 

 

 

85 & 85b filters

Well then here is the question:

If I expose a shot in daylight (gray scale/color chart in frame) with tungsten balanced film using:

1. AN 85

2. An 85b

3. With no filter. (compensating for exposure of course)

Will the lab be able to correct them all to BE the same? Won't the difference in the spectral components of the light reaching the film make a difference on the negative? One that we can see even when the shot is corrected to the same gray scale? Anyone done such a test, anyone know the answer?

Steven Gladstone

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

Rob Draper,ACS

What happened to the day when we didn't do what everyone else thought was right and actually tried something out for ourselves. Some of my best

work came from my own experiments. Also some of my greatest failures. I often laugh when someone asks the question "what is that stock like or what does that lens look like?" That's like describing the work of Michael Angelo over the phone. I'm not saying this is the norm, but lately I sure see a lot of it. Lately it's less legwork and more join the club. It seems sometimes like the art of cinematography is merely paint by numbers.

WalterNY

There will be some differences in look when you shoot without the 85 and have the lab correct it in printing. Without proper filter correction, your blues get over-exposed (or denser on the negative) and the reds gets under-exposed (or less dense.) Visually, this will make your reds less saturated, meaning that fleshtones will lose some of their color saturation (although this can be more pleasing in some cases.)

I usually shoot indoor daylight scenes with an LLD filter instead of an 85 onto tungsten stock, and I find that my fleshtones are a little more pastel, but in a pleasant way. But once I shot a scene and later found out that the window glass that the HMI's were shining through had a blue tint; even though I had used an LLD, my image was quite blue and when I timed it back to "normal", the fleshtones in the scene went pretty monochrome (although nobody else watching the print noticed this.)

David Mullen

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

Steven Poster ASC

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

Only Ektachrome films get an 85B correction on Kodak Charts.

Norayr Kasper

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

--scott

After doing a test of filters a number of years ago, I'm not so sure it's that important that our 85's match perfectly.

I did a filter test where I would shoot a scene with say an 85 on one half of the 35mm still frame, with the other half covered. (Actually using a Cokin split frame attachment.) I would then spin this device around and expose the other half of the frame with a filter that I wanted to compare to the first filter. Even though I was using regular still color negative film and having the prints made at a one hour photo shop, I could still make a valid comparison because both sides of the print had received the same printing exposure and development.

For a test comparing 85 type filters, I would of course first put a overall 80A filter on to turn the daylight color negative film into a tungsten film. It got a little tricky correcting for the various filters so that density would be even between the two sides.

What amazed me was that a Chocolate filter, which certainly looks very different then an 85 correction filter produced virtually the identical correction as an 85 filter!?

I've also seen "85" filters from still photography manufacturers that looked much browner then our customary Tiffen/Kodak "orange" filters.

I came to the conclusion that the visual look of a correction filter was not necessarily an indication of it's ability to do it's job ...

... Mako

Well, since spectral sensitivity curves are not linear and color negative films have to "cheat" the spectral response of the dye layers (thus the orange masking) my *guess* is (and it's just a guess) that a straight 85 IS providing

the proper correction to the dye layers.

Also the spectral distribution of sunlight or ay other blackbody is non-linear, so it's always a question of "matching the curves" - 5500K is a _nominal_ color temperature - "photographic daylight" which is equivalent to a so-called *typical* daylight situation, actually described as a mixture of sunlight and skylight with the sunlight predominating. (An EK booklet I have says photographic daylight is based on "average summer sunlight at noon in Washington DC" ! )

A 200 degree margin is significant at 3200 deg. but is relatively insignificant at 5500 deg.

The Ektachrome films were always rated for 3200K, only Kodachrome is 3400K.My guess here is that EK felt 3400K lamps would give less magenta in skintones, in home movies and slides. Also some 3400K lamps are designed to with envelopes to reduce UV transmission.

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

Sam Wells

Sorry Sean - you've gone crazy! They always required an #85 not #85B for basic colour correction on those ECN stocks (3200K) You're probably (like me) from the halcyon days of reversal colour where the #85B was the recommended correction for the 3400K stock like '42, '40, '50 and Kodachrome 40.

From what KODAK tells me and others this is true - the ECN 3200K balanced stocks are designed for a Wratten #85 filter for daylight correction so that correctly exposed - in theory you'd get a printer light of 25:25:25 to the LAD standard. But then that's only the theory!

The bottom line is always do what looks good!

John Bowring

That's not how I remembered it so I fished out Kodak H-1 (Selection and use of MP films, 1976), Eastman Films for the Cinematographer 1994 and some

K 40. Here's the story they tell.

Kodachrome 40 is an A type film: ie it is balanced for 3400K Photofloods and an 85 is the correct filter. Ektachrome '52 and '44 (Super 8) are also quoted as being type A.

The Kodak literature gives '50,'40 and '42 as type B, ie balanced for 3200K. An 81A is suggested for use in 3400K light and an 85B for daylight. I'm not even going to mention type G Ektachrome.

The filtration for all negative films, daylight and tungsten, is given as the same for 3200K and 3400K, ie 80A for daylight and none for tungsten.

I asked Don Strine of Kodak about the use of the LL-D filter with Vision stocks (I haven't got round to trying that combination yet). His reply was that because modern neg stock has such a long straight section on the characteristic curve there is not so much need for it (or an 85 by implication) now as there used to be - because the print can be made away from the toe and shoulder. That's the key to the whole issue, isn't it?

That's why you can't correct reversal film so well at a later stage. If the mid tones are corrected the highlights tend to turn orange. This effect was deliberately used the other way round to give blue skies were there were none for a wartime film made in a lifeboat somewhere up North (the name escapes me).

Maybe the 85 is suggested for historic reasons - it is the correct filter for Kodachrome 40A and that is all that really matters!

Continuing the Filterspotters tone, interestingly enough Kodak suggest the 80A for using daylight neg film in tungsten (ie 3200 to 5500K). This is about 1/3 of a stop denser than the already dense 80B. Why not just use the 80B? It gets more exciting by the hour.

Malcolm McCullough

Sorry to bring up a stale topic but I have just received a reply from the Kodak Gurus (Geoff Whittier, John Pytlak, Steve Powell, Fred Knauf and Ron Lorenzo) about the filter question.

Although they could not give us a definite "This is the reason why", the general consensus is the spectral sensitivity difference in the two films.

If you look at the spectral sensitivity curves of the two products (Ektachrome

and negative films), there is a noticeable difference in the yellow forming layers at the 400-380 wavelength range. Comparing an 85 and 85b filter, the most significant difference falls in the same range, thus the belief that the 85 filter was chosen over the 85b. All commented that either filter would produce acceptable results and only a very slight difference in look. John went as far as suggesting the only difference was in the taste of the people who originally prepared the data sheet information and all agreed that john was not far from the truth.

I hope this is of some interest

David Donaldson

Keep in mind that transferring reversal to tape is not new. For many years all film intended for television...news, documentary, current affairs, commercials (though not to the same extent) ..originated on reversal stock. News especially because of the turnaround time to get it on air. I many cases the film was shot, processed and edited and then projected through the old film chains directly to air.

I think every cameraman should spend some time shooting nothing but reversal stocks....it is the greatest way to really learn the subtleties of lighting, exposure, tonal variation, color and Film to Tape. If you think it's tough getting negative to tape through an Ursa Gold and DaVinci you should try it sometime with reversal on the old RCA Telecine chains....I am sure some of my old mates from the ABC (Aust) and BBC Documentary teams know what I mean.

Exposure accuracy was extremely critical as there was no safety net as is the case with today's low con negs.

Given all that, shooting reversal for telecine does require a modified approach but the results are quite spectacular, as everyone has commented, especially on the Fuji reversal which I believe is essentially based on their Velvia still stock.

Rob Draper,ACS

I think we should all meet in Washington DC at mid-day for the Summer Solstice and at the exact time shoot filter tests.

We could then sell them to Tiffen and Kodak and make an Interactive CD

Rom...or better yet maybe we could set up a Web site and put all the technical parameters in there so people might end up totally confused by it all and then we would be the only guys who would know the REAL truth.

Then all this would become proprietary and we could make lots of money and spend days in Museums looking at wonderful works of Art and marvel at the fact that these guys had never heard of 85 filters but still managed to get it right.

Rob Draper,ACS

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

So they took all the color out of it and released it as a sketch...

Art Adams

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

Jay

The following was translated from a little known parchment relating to a discussion between Rembrandt and one of his many patrons:

Patron: "You're killing me, Remmy baby, you're killing me! I can't stand like this all day and these costumes are costing me plenty!"

Rembrandt: "Just one more candle... I need to add one more candle..."

Patron: "Just sketch it in, I'll have one of your students fix it later!"

Rembrandt: "But this is the third time I've painted this portrait! Always time to do another painting but never enough time to light one more candle..."

Patron: "Hey, I can hardly see into those shadows, add some white, will 'ya?"

Rembrandt: "Always with the shadows... next it'll be too much perspective..."

Patron: "Yeah, what's with that foreshortening stuff? I paid for everything in this room and I want it all to look BIG!!!"

Rembrandt: (sighing) "Time for the large brushes and a gallon of thinner..."

Art Adam

I am impressed with the discussion on the use of 85 and 85-B filters. A little history lesson might be appropriate in light of the wave of post production and computer imaging currently riding the crest of popularity.

First, let me say, that now as in the past, science had been unable to manufacture a variable "RECEIVER', be it film, tape, television, pixels, etc. All color receivers manufactured to capture visual images are each color balanced for "ONE" Kelvin temperature. The one for which it was designed.

The first color films were introduced to the industry back in the mid 1930's. Type "B" films were color balanced to tungsten light (3,200K). A very important point of reference, since the light was known, had a standard Kelvin temperature and was measurable.

Even though film emulsions were all over the lot, in those early days the industry needed to convert tungsten films to daylight. The first conversion filter was a #83. (A medium orange color).

As the emulsions became stable, Eastman Kodak discontinued the #83 and introduced the 85-B. The nomenclature contained the complete use for thefilter. An 85-B for use with Type B films rated at 3,200K.

The next film venture was the manufacturing of Type A films, color balanced to 3,400K, that required less color conversion and gave birth to the #85 filter.For those of you who keep adding the #81 series to your #85, you should check your film and filter relationships. A straight #85 is 200 degrees "Color Short" for converting 3,400K rated films to daylight.

As for using no filter and color correcting in the lab, my personal view has always been to correct in the camera. You might ask Why? Well --- The energized light carrying an image from a scene to the receiver when measured with a Kelvin temperature meter, is a mean average. Conversion filters correct the mean averages, but some points of light are warmer than

the average and some points of light are colder. It is these slight color variations that give "LIFE" to color pictures.

When correction is performed in the lab, it's the same as painting the entire scene with a paint brush. The original image is overlaid with an optical color coating. The results are acceptable but stagnant. The color coating does not mix with the light of a scene.

How about the use of 85-C filters, that equals 1/2 of an 85? It converts 3,800K to daylight for use in late afternoon, when a full 85 conversion would be too warm.

One more point of information; The original 85 type A nomenclature was shortened to 85-A then to 85. They are all the SAME filter.

As for the 85-B and 85-C, these have no secondary name or symbol.

Hank HarrisonHarrison & Harrison Filters

 

 

 

16mm Handheld

Published : 3rd June 2007

I've a shoot coming up and I'm wanting a number of the shots handheld, longer takes, walking through a sort of decaying urban area. It's going to be half POV/half following the subject.

Are there any devices out there that can give me a steadier hold? I remember seeing Chris Doyle on set with a sort of backwards backpack. It had straps that went over his shoulders and the front had a large pillow like object that he could brace his elbows on and create a good base to hold with and keep steady while doing his crazy handhelds.

Was this something he just had made for himself or are there similar products out there?

Eoin McGuiganACMinneapolis/St. Paul

1/. Use a wide lens.

2/. Take a deep breath and tuck your arms in.

3/. Overcrank at 32 fps to smooth out residual movement.

4/. Don't try to walk while handholding. If you absolutely HAVE to move, do it in a wheelchair.

Scott DorseyKludge AudioWilliamsburg, VA.

Scott Dorsey writes :

>>1/. Use a wide lens.

Yes, always good.

>>2/. Take a deep breath and tuck your arms in.

Nope, not good. Unless you can hold your breath for 10 minutes. Tucked arms limit responsiveness.

>>3/. Overcrank at 32 fps to smooth out residual movement.

Not too good for sync shooting!

>>4/. Don't try to walk while handholding. If you absolutely HAVE to >>move, do it in a wheelchair.'

Feh!

What's most important is a perfectly balanced camera on your shoulder -- balance means your arm is only aiming, not supporting, the camera. Practice walking backwards with it. It's not all that hard, and don't have someone "guiding" you -- just someone who warns you of potholes and open manholes.

Jeff "the difference between comedy and tragedy... and open manhole covers" Kreines

>>4/. Don't try to walk while handholding. If you absolutely HAVE to >>move, do it in a wheelchair.'

Walking isn't too hard. There'll be some bounce, but that's why you're shooting handheld!

You'll probably find that shots that you think are too bouncy aren't when you see dailies. Your body tells you things are rockier than they are. Might be worth a practice with a video camera just to get a feel for what your motion looks like.

If breathing is an issue then you're either a very heavy breather or shooting on a very long lens. Overcranking should only be used as an effect. Most handheld is done at sync sound speeds.

What Jeff says is absolutely true. Make sure the camera is balanced.

One of the best ways of steadying the camera is to hold the corners or sides of the matte box with your

hands, making sure they are out of frame of course.

Art AdamsDirector of PhotographyFilm | Hidef | VideoSan Jose, CA, USA

www.artadams.net

An Easy Rig is the way to go:

http://www.easyrig.se

Tom CamardaLA DP (IA600)

www.tomcamarda.net

>>"I remember seeing Chris Doyle on set with a sort of backwards >>backpack."

I agree with Jeff in his observations, the idea of being handheld is to be handheld if you want to be super steady hire a Steadicam Operator.

A perfectly balanced camera will make all the difference; light weight video camcorders are much harder to handhold than a well weighted film camera.

But to get back to the quoted section above it sounds like he was using an:

EASYRIG : http://www.easyrig.se/

The usual constraints do apply - I am not an employee of or associated to... blah... blah... blah... (Although we do have one for rent)

Dean Slotar | One8Six Cape Townt +27-21-555-1780 | f +27-21-555-1828 | m +27-82-895-2620

Tom Camarda wrote:

>> An Easy Rig is the way to go:

If you don't mind looking like a machine...

Jeff Kreines

I have used the easy rig a number of times. I don't like it for all types of situations, but for long walking shots it can be a good solution.

Also consider attaching an on-board monitor to operate and judge your framing. It will free you up and make your operating easier...

Toby BirneyD.O.P. / Camera OperatorBased in Lithuania

Thanks for the suggestions all

Eoin McGuiganACMinneapolis/St. Paul

>>An Easy Rig is the way to go:

>>If you don't mind looking like a machine...

The easy rig is a godsend for shooting long handheld hours with cameras that are either heavy or unbalanced. It takes the weight from the shoulder to the hips and that can really help with RSI problems and fatigue.

It doesn't really smooth things out much (OK, a bit) but it sure takes some of the pain out of a fourteen hour day of handheld with an F900 fully loaded for drama production.

It also provides a very slim footprint, with a little stabilization, for occasions where a Steadicam wont fit.

Works well with roller blades on the right floor!

Who cares if they look like a machine?!? David Perrault, CSC

Good suggestions so far, personally I don't like the easy rig too much. You don't need it for a well balanced camera IMHO (obviously an F-900 falls out of this category).

As for walking, walk with your knees bent for a smoother look. This requires strong upper legs.

Florian Stadler, D.P., L.A.

www.florianstadler.com

David Perrault wrote:

>>It doesn't really smooth things out much (OK, a bit) but it sure takes >>some of the pain out of a fourteen hour day of handheld with an F900 >>fully loaded for drama production.

I'll second this - it you're using the F900 it's great because it Improves the balance of the camera by redistributing some of the weight from your shoulder to your hips, but it really doesn't do much in terms

of giving you steadier shots. I wouldn't use it with a 16mm camera because they don't weigh enough to really need to have their weight redistributed.

What works best for me (when handholding 16mm cameras) is instead of trying to keep the camera perfectly motionless is to add a very slight, very subtle movement to the camera. (If someone can notice the movement, then it's not subtle enough.)

So instead than fighting the mass of the camera and it's inertia by locking tensing up and locking my muscles in place (which quickly causes them to fatigue), it's more like gently guiding and dampening what the camera wants to do.

Another way of looking at it is that if you were carrying an infant or a small child on your shoulder, you'd balance him a bit differently than if you were carrying a box of canned goods. (I hope analogy makes sense - I can already imagine the sarcastic comments about infants and canned goods.)Jessica GallantLos Angeles based Director of PhotographyWest Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List

http://www.cinematography.net

David Perrault wrote:

>>Who cares if they look like a machine?!? <g>Those who shoot non-fiction films, where the equipment should attract as little attention as possible. For you folks shooting fiction, no problemo.

Jeff "same thing re Steadicams, of course" Kreines

Jessica Gallant writes:>>What works best for me (when handholding 16mm cameras) is >>instead of trying to keep the camera perfectly motionless is to add a >>very slight, very subtle movement to the camera.

Yes. Trying to keep things rock-steady induces the kind of muscle tension that then induces more abrupt motions and corrections, etc...

This fluidity is especially important when you've got only got one crack at the action and suddenly find yourself in a physically uncomfortable position that will drive you nuts and eventually blow the shot. (Part of the art of verite-type shooting is to avoid getting into that kind of position in the first place. But it can't always be avoided.)

Of course, camera balance is essential. If you're stuck with a handheld camera that's poorly balanced, at least use a monopod that's seated in a belt-pouch. (a Steady-Stick-type arrangement) That can be a good compromise between steadiness and flexibility. Bogen/Manfrotto make some very lightweight monopods with little lockable tilt heads that let you set an optimal camera angle and adjust it as needed. (Ball-heads are for still cameras!)

Dan DrasinProducer/DPMarin County, CA

Florian Stadler wrote:

>>As for walking, walk with your knees bent for a smoother look. This >>requires strong upper legs.

I've also found that the shoes you wear make a difference. Hard soled boots like timberlands don't help - barefoot or trainers are best.

Michael Sanders--London based DoP/Lighting CameramanMobile: 07976 269818Diary: Digital Garage 020 7348 1910

 

 

 

 

Afro-American Project

Published : 16th July 2005

I will be doing a film with predominantly African-Americans in it. I want to draw on any ones experience lighting these people to look their best

Any recommendations on filtration, color temperature, or lighting gels to test to really make them look the best?

John GonzalvezDP Golden Era Productions LA

I will be doing a film with predominantly African-Americans in it. I want to draw on anyone’s experience lighting these people to look their best.

I will make two observations, one probably obvious one, and one less obvious one.

Test test test before you start and get used to metering a bit more with a spotmeter until you are happy with where skin-tones are falling - it is a good reminder that darker skin doesn't necessarily want to fall the same zone as caucasian skin.

Secondly, while we tend to shy away from green light impinging on our leading actors when they are white, due to the sickly pallor that can be created, I found in my time working with predominately black dance troupes (in my misspent youth as a lighting designer and electrician) and later in the world of early rap and black pop artist videos, greens and ambers as accent lights and edge lights in some

situations can be really pleasing.

Deep saturated blues can cause some really unfortunate effects with very dark skin, so if your film is likely to have lots of situations that call for saturated colors (club or rave scenes or that kinda thing) you might want to spend a little of your pre-shoot tests playing with saturated colors as side lights so you can see what you like and what you want to stay away from.Another obvious tip - make friends with the makeup dept as one of the most effective ways to cut a very dark-skinned face out of a dark background (without smashing a separation light into the deep background) is to reflect a bounce source or a large diffuse edge light source in a cheek that has a little perspiration (or "glow" as we would say on a leading lady)

I hope this doesn't all sound stupidly mechanical, but if you abstract the body and face shapes into convex and concave shapes and think about them the way you would about lighting glossy tabletop or dark cars, you will see what I mean...reflecting white cards, silver cards, gold cards etc can be much more gratifying than on pasty white skin (like mine)

I have been enjoying the look of "The Wire" on HBO - gritty but cool.

Get a bunch fashion and lifestyle magazines aimed at the African American market and look at how their ads are lit. Now I'll shut up (I'm a VFX nerd after all) and make room for the more artistic among us to make some useful suggestions

Mark Weingartnerex lighting/sound man for the Cotton Club on 125th st(a LONG time ago)

John Gonzalvez wrote :

>I will be doing a film with predominantly African-Americans in it...Any >recommendations on filtration...

Most of what you need involves using make-up assistance and is based in providing ample light on the actors and balancing that with the background illumination. In addition, there are things you can do with filters...

Contrast reduction, using a mild grade like an 1/8 or 1/4 Low Contrast or Ultra Contrast filter will help bring out more detail especially in the darker skin tones.

The darker the skin, the more there is a tendency for what I perceive as almost a dichroic effect- highlights reflect as bluish from the warm-toned skin, which can be reduced by the use of a skin-tone enhancing filter like the 812. The additional color "warmth" of the 812 also generally improves skin tones of all types.

A mild grade Pro-Mist (1/8 or 1/4), or of a Glimmerglass filter, can do two things at once : reduce contrast and provide some highlight flare. Enhancing the "modelling" quality of the light, this has the ability to increase the sense of depth, of three-dimensionality, in the image, which will improve the viewer's ability to discern details in a dark subject.

Some of the above effects, like the Pro-Mist, for instance, also come combined with an 812 and is in this case called a "warm" Pro-Mist, so if you choose to use both types of effects, you can do that in one filter by using the "warm" version.

Above all, test as extensively as your situation allows. Hope it all goes well...

Ira TiffenLA,CA

I have worked numerous times with African American actors, and for the most part I think it is best not to change anything in your approach.

However, the range of skin tones can be quite large. If you are dealing with very dark actors, you may want to do something against the bluish hue, which was already pointed out by others. Additionally depending how dry the skin is, its surface may be more revealing in regard to reflections of light sources. Sometimes a polarizer can dry up some ones skin quite well.

Additionally, using a contrast viewing glass can help.

Finally, one word of caution, many people are unaware that cinematographers refer to skin color as a subject purely related to film latitude, contrast, and exposure value. I have seen people being fired from productions, because a technical comment was mistaken for racism.

Joerg Schodl, Cinematographer, LA

Regarding Ira's "dichroic" effect-which appears most often, I think, on temples and sides of faces and can be caused by back/side-lights raking very dark skin-use a chocolate gel on those lights only instead of (or in addition to) an overall lens correction filter.

cf. "The Landlord," shot many years ago by Gordon Willis, and using this solution, among others.

And, while often not appropriate, huge "double-bounced" or "double-diffused" lights can look just as luscious...or more so...on dark skin as on light. They need not wrap very far around the face.

On the opposite end of the scale, if appropriate and if you and the director have the stomach to let an actor deliver a long "aria" in a very "moody" scene, with a face in near silhouette, try using a single (fairly soft) side or back/side light alone...or with very little fill...to define a face. (Think Marlon Brando up the river in "A Pocket Book Now" or, more recently, some of Sean Penn's "arias" in "Mystic River.") But be careful...the better DP's who do this usually have other, brighter elements in the frame.

Jerry CottsDP/LA

>And, while often not appropriate, huge "double-bounced" or "double->diffused" lights can look just as luscious...or more so...on dark skin as >on light. They need not wrap very far around the face"

May I as a purely documentary cameraman contribute my 2 cents. My biggest challenge is to keep that natural colour saturation with dark skin. In my experience approaches such as the use of low contrast filtration and intense make up only serves to create an unnatural milky skin tone and loss of skin detail. As Jerry Cotts said "double - diffused lights can look luscious", in my experience you need to colour the diffuser, I make use of a gel called "Bustard Amber" on the fill to warm the white diffuser to have less of a milky projection.

Jacques Nortier - Environmental & Wildlife cameraman, South Africa

 

 

 

 

Additional Costs For Shooting In The Water

Published : 31st August 2005

Hi folks,

I'm hoping someone can give me a good idea of the additional costs involved in shooting miniDV or beta in the water, in New York City. We need to get some shots of a model jumping into the water, where the cameraman would also be in the water. We're not looking for a solution that you'd need for serious depth - the camera wouldn't ever be more than a foot or two under the surface.

Are there any rental houses to talk to in the city? And idea of the extra costs and equipment needed?

Thanks,

Elliot Blanchard

As far as I know, there are a few houses that rent that sort of equipment. A friend of mine used one of those water bags, which are basically expensive zip-locks, and it fried his VX2000. I don't know what kind of insurance they offer, but in his case it was nada. It's better to be safe than sorry with this stuff, and I'd consider renting one of those specially made HD underwater cams they have in AC.

Jim EaganNY cameraman/editor

>I'm hoping someone can give me a good idea of the additional costs >involved in shooting miniDV or beta in the water, in New York City.

I recall seeing a company that specialized in water shots located somewhere near NYC at a trade show at the Javitts Center a few years ago. They had a long jib arm on display with an underwater camera housing that could be dipped in and out of the water. The camera head and controls were all remote.

I recall the name being Sea and Land or something like that. That may be cheaper than putting the camera op in the water or in a boat. And it may give you many more options for shots. Just a thought...

Anybody know of that outfit??

Jim Sofranko

NY/DP

Here's what my Google search turned up…

http://www.airsealand.com/home/

I've never worked with them but maybe someone here has.

Jim SofrankoNY/DP

Hand Held Films … 212-502-0900 … has under water housings for DV cameras.

Nick Hoffman NYDP

Jim Eagan writes:

>A friend of mine used one of those water bags, which are basically >expensive zip-locks, and it fried his VX2000.

Arrrgh… Was the bag defective? Did he forget to zip it up tight? Did he take it below its rated depth...??

Dan DrasinProducer/DPMarin County, CA

What he told me was that the bag had a small hole in it. He said that he tested it beforehand with no leak, so for whatever reason it opened up on the shoot. Of course he didn't sign any kind of agreement in case of damage, so he was left holding the bag (literally). The whole concept of it seems rather flimsy to me, especially for a $5k piece of equipment (or more). I'd rather spend the extra money on an underwater camera rental than an underwater housing.

I've actually considered shooting with my old hi-8 and super-8 cameras in a modified fishbowl housing, but who knows. I certainly wouldn't put any kind of high end equipment on the line without some major insurance.

Jim EaganNY editor/cameraman

I would not recommend to use soft bag for any deep stuff (deep means going under 1m with it) even if they are rated 4m or more there are too many things that can go wrong, including people closing them

or prepping them incorrectly.

These type of “splashbags†are really what it says on the tin, “splashbagsâ€, ideal for working � �around water.

On the subject of insurance do bear in mind that most policies specifically exclude underwater work and that in some countries, UK, CANADA, FRANCE, AUSTRALIA, to name few, there are specific regulations when it comes to work underwater, and you might be breaking some local laws or if you cause damage to equipment or structures, or god forbid, people, your insurance will not cover you.

Better check first or ask around.

Franz Pagot AICDirector of Photography/Underwater CameramanGBCT MBKS BAFTA

http://www.franzpagot.commob +447770520757London UK

>I'm hoping someone can give me a good idea of the additional costs >involved in shooting miniDV or beta in the water, in New York City...the >camera wouldn't ever be more >than a foot or two under the surface.

Hi Elliot,

I once tried shooting in a tank using a small miniDV camera in a splash bag.

My problem with using a soft bag, was that even at 2 -3 meters there was enough water pressure to activate some of the buttons on the camera so that digital effects and autofocus etc started to kick in all of their own accord. Underwater you are better off using a hard housing for the camera.

If you are only going to be one or two foot below the surface, there are several ways to get the shot :

1/. put the camera in an underwater housing, attach it to a jib arm submerge it and operate it remotely.

2/. put the camera in an underwater housing and have the camera operator operate it in the water. For your shot he /she may only need snorkel and mask.

3/. the camera can be out of the water (wrapped in cling film, or in a splash bag), use a periscopic lens attachment to get the under water shot. (In a shallow pool the tripod can be in the water.)

4/. Some pools or shooting tanks have windows that allow you to see the underwater activity from the outside. You may be able to shoot through such a window. You'll need black drape behind the camera to minimise reflections and rest the matte box right up against the glass. Photographically, this is not the best option and you have limited choice of angles.

However, options 3, or 4 may prove to be the most cost effective to get your shot.

If you have to submerge the camera, for DV cameras you can find a good housing reasonably cheap. In Europe there are many diving clubs with extremely knowledgeable members about such things, I would be very surprised if that isn't also the case in NYC. Talk to the local diving community about sourcing gear for small cameras. If you shoot on beta, you'll need to hire a housing for the camera you

are using and your crew must know how to use the equipment - this will be more expensive.

More than anything, you should find out about the local laws regarding filming underwater for commercial purposes. It may be that, in certain situations, you'll be required by law to have a qualified safety diver in the water (even if the camera crew are out of the water) - in which case the cost of the diver and his equipment will add to your expenses. I'll give you an example. A few years ago I was focus pulling on a feature film in the UK.

We had to do a similar shot of an actress diving into a swimming pool (something that thousands of people do everyday). The extra equipment consisted of an underwater housing for the camera and two sets of Scuba diving gear. The shot didn't need focus pulling, but I was in the water as the safety diver.

I hope this helps and good luck with the shootBehzad Olia-RosenkranzEuropean based Cameraman / AssistantLuzern

>1/. put the camera in an underwater housing, attach it to a jib arm >submerge it and operate it remotely.

As an aside...what heads are able to handle getting wet (say 1M)?

Dylan Macleod, csc

www.dylanmacleod.comToronto, Canada

 

 

 

Action At Night

I am directing a low-budget science fiction,zombie action movie here in Ireland.I have to shoot complicated multiple fight sequences at night.

I know my D.P will need at least three or four H.M.Is, as its a pretty big area all this stuff takes place in.

Anybody got any tips or hints on how to get Hollywood -style effects on a low budget.

Thanks,

Shane Sheils

Dublin,Ireland

You should first always begin with WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE, rather than worrying about how a typical Hollywood movie would light a night scene.

Think art and work backwards to the technology, not the other way around.

You can begin by deciding what the source of light would be in the scene, and if you should create some (let's say, having characters with torches or flashlights or car headlights, etc.) This will determine whether you go for a big moonlight effect, or suggest some other source.

If you decide on moonlight as the probably source, how blue it should be, or how soft, etc. again, that's an artistic decision. I don't worry so much about how much blue in moonlight is realistic; instead I consider how much blue does the particular story benefit from.

And if you're shooting an action scene, you should consider using enough light to stop down the lens a little -- it can be very hard to shoot action with the lens wide-open. And hire really good focus-pullers...

Either way, if it's a big night exterior, think big in terms of lights -- hopefully your budget can handle this.

Recently, I thought "Donnie Darko" had some great night exterior work in terms of using Vision 800T and some big light (Musco, Steve? BeeBee Night Light?) to create moonlight across a large area -- it was atmospheric and natural, with a lot of depth. I liked how the background was lit sometimes more than the foreground, as opposed to the typical low-budget look of having a lit foreground and an unlit background. Nice work.

David Mullen

Cinematographer / L.A.

You know, you have just perfectly described a recurring nightmare that I have been having for years.

As to how to light it I totally agree with David says. You should first think why, then figure out how.

Then again you are doing low budget fight scene. Which generally means you need to shoot as many shots as you can afford to as quick as you can.

Night is dark so seeing as much black in the frame as you can is good, as long as you can still see what the actors are doing.

I suggest the radical concept of back light.

And I always thought blue is a nice cool night time color. I know pretty outrageous.

Then you could bring in a side light to make your actors faces visible when you need to.

( As to the zombies' faces, seeing less is more, why actually show it to the audience when their own imaginations can do a better job, and cost at lot less.)

Make it not blue so the blue backlight is balanced. Maybe you could motivate the light by having a bunch of burning cars scattered around the abandoned streets. Yeah and then you could put your main actor, a mercenary called snake in a mullet. And then ....

Anyway basically how many units you use totally depends on how much area you need to cover in your

wide shots. Also the lay out of the street will also determine how many.

If you're lucky you can make do with on big back light and some smaller foreground units, its not like I haven't spent entire shows with a smaller package. { I DON'T MEAN THAT!!} You don't necessarily even need to use HMI's, big dino's, wendys and 9lights can also work, you just tend to need more man power, not to mention electrical power.

You really need to go scout your location with your dp block out your shots make a plan and count.

What do you guys think about lighting it by flying up a helium balloon or tube HMI as the moon source? cost effective?

I've seen some low budget success as well, by going guerilla style with a lights/gennie combo trailer, from a construction rental company

I would be very cautious with the helium balloon idea. I used one a few years ago and night one was great, no wind. Night two the wind came up and it was unusable.

I like the idea of one high, large source (color to taste) as a back or 3/4 back and some smaller fixtures as side or front soft bounces. My personal preference is to use buildings and trees to create depth by either lighting or not lighting them as the shot requires. The bigger the area, the bigger the package, the more manpower.

I have seen some incredibly effective uses of 800 iso film used on low budget shows where we did light the foreground and then sent a couple of hard sources deep into the BG to pick off a couple of buildings or signs or trees or whatever...

But all lighting aside, I would take some time to speak with the DP about your look and what kinds of shots you need to achieve to make the scene work. Once you know what you need to do, communicate it to your DP, trust him (and the crew) to get what you need.

All the low budget shows I've worked on demand a commitment to an approach ahead of time and the ability to turn on dime if something changes. Given that this is all fight stuff, it will likely take a lot of shots to make the scenes work. A solid plan will give you more time in front of the camera for shooting...

Regards,

Andrew Gordon

Gaffer, Regina, Saskatchewan

"T. Hunter McCann" wrote:

>what do you guys think about lighting it by flying up a helium balloon or tube HMI as >the moon source? cost effective?

Cost effective no, well, only in certain cases.

Did one tv shoot where it was going to be all one long take with the camera hand held running in and out of a farm house.

It was all on video, and the op wasn't too steady, basically saw the world. The 4k ballons were very expensive for the amount of light they actually put out but easy to set up in mild wind and cause all that was visible below, with no supports, was the cord and guide ropes the camera could pan right thru them and not notice.

Even when seen in back ground kinda looked like a slightly bobbing moon. Nice soft nondiscript light, perfect for naturalistic video. But they really need to be right over the scene, no real cast distance at all, and the cost of the gas every night, even though we didn't empty them during the day, and the units themselves, owww eee mamma.

They fill certain holes and solve certain set up problems very well but have a long way to go before they become standard lighting tools, if ever.

HEY SHEAN

i have come across the same situation once.i created a mild smoke allover the background and gave a lit from a high level.the smoke will give u a negative value and use very minimal light on the subject to get a semi silhoutte image.make sure the smoke level and check the wind and its direction.it worked for me pretty well.try and let me know.

tirru

d o p india

>Even when seen in back ground kinda looked like a slightly bobbing moon.

I've thought of using those construction lighting rigs, but couldn't quite motivate that sort of source.

Well if it WAS the dramatic source... I shot a scene with them once moving in the shot, but that was for a surreal sort of idea, you couldn't see any humans operating them.

Watching "The Fast and The Furious" last night (hey I'm the parent of a teenager) you can see a Musco rig in one of the long shots - sort of blends right in there, I mean it's LA after all...

-Sam Wells

I love the moonlight effect in Cast Away when Hanks walks down to the beach for a night piss and catches sight of a light (ship) on the horizon. The softest feeling in quality of light and monochromatic as well as allowing large areas to remain on the edge or unlit, and I admit I am a sucker for the star effect, waves rolling... all combined to create a true to life theatrical experience. I wonder about the mix of cg and principle photography. This line reminds me I must look back and see if I can find details.

David Campbell

Operator.Steadicam.FL

I don't have the AC article in front of me but I think they did day-for-night and used skyline replacement for the sky.

David Perrault, csc

 

 

 

 

 

 

Achieving The High Contrast Look

Published : 15th February 2004

Hi,

I'm a student at he Munich film school.

The film I'm going to shoot is playing in the summer, mostly outside. To visualize the heat, the director and I came to the conclusion that a warm filter would be suitable for the look of the story. I shot several tests with a Kodak 250 daylight stock and different filters. (chocolate, tobacco,yellow,85 and 81ef). I'd probably choose the 81ef, that looked best.

I was therefore disappointed about the contrast of the film. We would like to have a very high contrast (very dark shadows and highlights ), so I decided to shoot with a less sensitive stock. I'm thinking of using the 64d from Fuji. I shot the same test again with the same filters. I'll have to wait a couple of days to see the result. I don’t think the contrast will be strong enough though.

My question is : how can I influence the contrast of a film without using digital methods?(we cant afford a scan!)

My first idea was to shoot with a positive stock but Kodak Germany has to order it from the US, which would take too long(we're shooting next week).

Does a bleach bypass help? What else can I do to get a very high contrast look?

Thank you

Namche Okon

Bleach-bypass, either to the negative or the print (or both) will increase the contrast. Reversal films will give you more contrast and cross-processing them will make it even more high-contrast.

Push-processing color negative will give you a little more contrast but not as much as you'd like I suspect. Printing onto a more contrasty print stock like Premier will help too.

David Mullen, ASCLos Angeles

Hmmmm....

Besides filtration, you could shoot in the harshest possible light (direct sunlight with negative fill), push your development, and over- or under-expose to kill as much detail as you can get away with, then print accordingly

Hitting your exposure just right will be tricky, so if at all possible, either run exposure tests in advance (through a test print if possible), or do several takes to bracket your exposures.

Or expose correctly, and do your contrast manipulation in the lab -- printing these scenes through an interpositive and internegative. Consult with your lab about the options.

And good luck!

Dan DrasinProducer/DPMarin County, CA

F64 is a lower contrast daylight stock.

Go Kodak slow daylight for contrast.

A few heavily overexposed areas within shot are good for giving an impression of heat.

Shoot everything backlit and expose for the shadows, don't use fill, and the overexposure will make it look hot.

Portable camping gas stove held under the lens, well under and in front, will give you a heat haze to shoot through.

All the above is easier with longer lenses.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKSDirector of PhotographyEU Based

www.cinematography.net/geoff

Isn't it a bit to risky to bleach bypass the neg?What would the result look like, besides of the desaturation?

Yes, I was thinking of shooting with highlights a negative fills.

I'll will also check the lab.

Namche Okon

> isn’t it a bit to risky to bleach bypass the neg?

Not really if you have tested the process and know what the results will be, and in a pinch, you could later run it through the bleach step and remove the silver, but if you had underexposed to compensate for the bleach-bypass, then you'd have a thin negative as a result.

A bleach-bypass process to the negative results in excess density, as if you had overexposed by a stop and a half. Most people rate the stock one stop faster to compensate unless they like the burned-out look to the highlights.

You get more graininess than with a bleach-bypass print because the silver grains are larger (faster) in camera negative stock than in lab stocks, which are extremely slow in speed. Instead of getting blacker blacks and darker shadows as with a bleach-bypass print, you get hotter whites and less overexposure detail, so the increase in contrast is mostly seen in the bright areas not the shadows.

David Mullen, ASCLos Angeles

Namche,

Under exposing (say 2 stops) and correcting in printing, gives a higher contrast look (along with other artefacts). Letting the sun cross light the subject and using lots of negative fill helps.

Try this before bleach bypass.Paul Hicks

>Under exposing (say 2 stops) and correcting in printing, gives a higher >contrast look (along with other artefacts).

Artefacts including an -extremely- thin negative...

Actually, I'd think that this would yield a much lower contrast (and grainier) look because your highlights are considerably closer to D-MIN.

That would have to be a REALLY good film stock to allow for a 2 stop underexposure correction...

Art Adams, DP [film|hdtv|sdtv]San Francisco Bay Area - "Silicon Valley"

http://www.artadams.net/

>Under exposing (say 2 stops) and correcting in printing, gives a higher >contrast look

I tend to think the opposite -- sure, there is a loss of shadow detail but you get such milky blacks that the image might look lower in contrast, plus you're exposing the image along the toe of the stock, which is naturally less contrasty than the steeper straight-line portion.

Underexposing and push-processing so that the printer lights are normal would give you more contrast than underexposing and printing at low printer light numbers.

David Mullen, ASCLos Angeles

>Under exposing (say 2 stops) and correcting in printing, gives a higher >contrast look

I don't think so. Underexposing will push more of the image onto the toe of the characteristic curve, reducing the density range of the negative.

Result: lower contrast, not higher.

There's not much you can do in processing to alter contrast without introducing crossed colours. But I'd recommend normal exposure (to keep off the toe region) and pushing one stop in the process, resulting in a denser negative with slightly raised contrast.

Pushing any more tends to build up graininess.

Dominic CaseAtlab Australia

Oopps…I forgot to add that, of course, you have to push process back to compensate for the underexposure to get your high contrast negative.

Maybe a better way of describing it is to overrate your neg by a factor of 2 and push process the same amount.

Paul Hicks

How about shooting on '85 and printing back to neg?

Steven GladstoneNew York Based D.P.

www.gladstonefilms.com East Coast CML List administrator

>Maybe a better way of describing it is to overrate your neg by a factor of >2 and push process the

same amount.

How about rating the stock normally, pushing one and then printing down...?

Art Adams, DP [film|hdtv|sdtv]San Francisco Bay Area - "Silicon Valley"

I agree with Dominic: Avoid underexposure and consider a push-1 ECN-2 process to boost overall contrast a bit:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/push.jhtml?id=0.1.4.11.4.16&lc=en

John PytlakEastman Kodak Company

http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Thanks a lot!!!

Namche Okon