ben_gervais

David M... A technique we use in cinematography for focusing is to get a mini-maglite, and unscrew the top of it (turning it into a 'candle') Get your subject or assistant to hold the bulb next to the outer corner of their eye (it doesn't get too hot) then focus so that the flare from the bulb is sharp.

Don't know if this would work for you, but focusing on flares is a very exact method of focusing most lenses when there isn't alot of detail in the plane of focus. (you could also focus on a bright reflection in the eyes from a light on the subject)

Cheers,

-ben

Thanks everyone...

I'm unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) restricted to the use of either 4"x5.65" or 6.6" x 6.6" filters, as these are the two standard sizes for movie use. (also the only way I'll be able to make my money back by renting them back to productions)

My main concern, as I will be shooting colour transparencies, is filter movement for placing ND grads... it seems to me that with 4x4 filters, you would not get any movement unless on a fairly tight lens. Are ND grads just not used alot in LF?

Cheers,

-ben

I'm slowly putting together my LF 'plan' for 8x10...

A question: From what I read, many lenses exceed the 4" width of most

popular filters / holders. What do people here use as an alternative?

I work in the film industry, frequently as a camera assistant, and we

use 'matte boxes' to hold large filters which either use metal rods to

hold the matte box, or smaller matte boxes that clip onto the outside

of the lens.

Since I can also rent any filters I purchase back to productions I use

them on, I am tempted to build a 6.6" x 6.6" filter set with a matte

box (like the ARRI LMB-4). It would seem to me that this would work

well for 8x10, but I'd just like to know if there are any obvious

pitfalls to this venture that I'm overlooking.

Cheers,

-ben gervais

The Calirmont Camera 'squishy lens' is an interesting tool that could be used... rents for $$$ though... might be worth a visit to them if you are interested (dunno if it would work with LF)

<p><p>

<a href=http://www.clairmont.com/spec_items/squishy_lens.html>link to it here</a>

<p><p>

Cheers,<br>

-ben

This is considered a major highway, and every effort is made to keep it open at all times. Having said that, breakdowns should happen, so you should be prepared to sleep in your car should something extraordinary occur.

<br><br>

I belive it is illegal to use chains on ontario roadways, and the road will be plowed and sanded / salted, so they shouldn't be necessary in any event.<br><br>

here is a link to Wawa's seasonal norms: <a href=http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=ALL&StationName=wawa&SearchType=BeginsWith&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=4099&&autofwd=1&pageid=2&lang=ENG>Environment canada</a><br><br>

Cheers,<br><br>

-ben

I do this all the time for movie film... I just spool off 100 feet or so, and put that in the bulk loader... as another poster mentioned, two nails on a board can make the spooling go reasonably well if you don't have movie crank spoolers (called re-winders)(can be found on e-bay)

Cheers,

-ben

I think Canadian shield country is wonderful, and if you're into trees... well, we've got lots of those. I would recommend the Barron Canyon as a place to visit (east end of Algonquin park). Only a short walk from the car (10 minutes?)

<p>

There's some photos of it in my portfolio: <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=166273>portfolio</a>

<p>

Here is a database of many of the waterfalls in the province, with a 'visitability' rating, indicating how far from the road each are! <a href=http://www.start.ca/users/mharris/waterfalls/>Waterfalls of Ontario</a>

<p>

Have fun<br>

-ben

MP film will work in a stills camera no problem, I'm not sure what Eric is talking about. The perforations are different, but still cameras don't make use of the perforations.

I have frequently loaded MP film into still casettes for my own use as well as the use of on-set photographers, and have never had a problem or complaint. Just remember, DO NOT send it to a c41 lab to be processed! the black backing on the film will come off, all over the lab's rollers, in their chemistry, everywhere. They will be very mad.

As noted however, MP labs hate developing the 5 feet of film that fits into the still cartridge, so it's best to get them to commit to doing it BEFORE you go and shoot with MP film. RGB is one of the only labs that will do so happily, and they print you positives on movie release stock to boot.

Cheers,

-ben

perhaps the blue filter is meant to be a contrast filter (cobalt glass?) I dunno if people use these in still photography anymore, but alot of cinematographers still use them...

Cheers,

-ben

In case the last answer was too techy, here's a layman's version:

4:1:1 and 4:2:2, etc have to do with compression. In a perfect world, when we have all the storage space we could ever need, every pixel would have it's own set of information stored for it. In video, we store information as 3 pieces of information, 1 that tells us the brightness of the pixel, and 2 others that tell us the colour.

So, in a perfect world, pixel A would have information x1, y1, and z1. Pixel B next to it would have information x2, y2, z2.

Since that is alot of information to store, engineers have noticed that they can 'cheat' with the colour information, and only store one colour for every 2 pixels. Thus, pixel A has information x1, y1, z1 and pixel B has information x2, y1, z1. thus saving a significant amount of storage. This is called 4:2:2, since for every 1 pixel we have about half the amount of colour information.

Now taking it further for consumer DV devices, introduce pixels C and D, adjacent to but two lines below (because NTSC is interlaced) A and B. And use the same colour information for them. So C has x3, y1, z1 and D has x4, y1, z1. We've saved even more space! but at the expense of colour or 'chroma' resolution (note that we have still kept all our brightness or 'luma' resolution though). This is called 4:1:1 and is just fine for most consumer uses, but not very good if you want to have a very detailed picture.

As noted above, the actual numbers refer to the number of samples, and will be called into account if you are comparing different high end formats. But the ratio is by no means mathematical, and becomes meaningless if you really get into the topic. IE some pro stuff claims 4:4:4, and some 8:8:8 - if it's just a ratio, then these would be the same, but they're not the same. You'll also note that 4:1:1 does not have any indication that, in fact, the next two pixels are below, and not beside the first two. All you really need to know is all other factors being equal, higher numbers are better here.

Hope that helps,

-ben

I've shot both, and for a doc, it's cheaper to shoot video. But, if you've got the cash, then shoot 16. The quality is better, you only have to haul 2 batteries for a film camer if you're out in the field all day (as opposed to the 10 for video) and you can do a hi-definition transfer if you want to in the future. I've also used the sony HDW-900 and it EATS batteries. Just not practical for shooting all day out in the middle of nowhere.

that bit above about video looking better on tv than film is bunk IMHO. If you can shoot film, then go for it, but few doc producers will spring for film these days now that video has all but relegated film to the backbenches (as far as documentaries are concerned at least)

Cheers

Contact these guys:

http://www.pro8mm.com/

They cut down and re-perforate 35mm film stock to super-8. They don't stock a b&w neg offering, but they've got the equipment, so you may be able to get a special order.

Cheers

call kodak....

UK Delivery

Twice Daily delivery to the Greater London area and Next Day delivery for almost all destinations throughout the UK. Filmmakers can rely on Kodak to deliver. You will have your film, in the right place, at the right time, for your production every time. For all areas within and close to the M25 orders taken by 11.00am are delivered the same day. Orders before 15.30hrs will arrive the next morning. For all orders please telephone 01442 845945.

Arri and Panavision also sell kodak 16mm film.

or Fujifilm...

normal van service only. Under normal circumstances goods ordered by midday will be delivered within 2 working days (next day in central London). Other delivery arrangements can be made but may be subject to additional charge Direct Tel: 020 7465 5753

or Ilford (black and white stock only):

ILFORD Imaging UK Limited Tel - 01565 684000

Note that if you require double perf (perforations on both sides of the film) you will have st special order it from any of the above manufacturers (all modern 16mm cameras only use film with perfs on one side of the film)

Cheers

-ben

If he's really serious about it, he should not be buying his equipment at all. Virtually everyone in the film industry rents their gear, and your friend could instead get some insurance and rent real movie making gear. Many rental houses will let you take old 16mm or 35mm cameras out for weeks while paying a fraction of the posted rental price (because pros don;t tend to rent the old gear, so they may as well get _some_ cash for it instead of it sitting on the shelf and collecting dust)

cheers,

-ben

Moost of the above info is reasonably accurate, I've worked with 'film looking' video several times professionally and here's some tips that most people overlook:

Flim is softer than video. - So, shoot with you aperature wide open or near to it when shooting video (you almost never see scenes with everything in focus when looking at a movie do you?) To do that you may need to invest in some ND filters. Also, if you use a filter like a 1/4 black pro-mist you will soften it slightly and give it a less sharp look.

Use a fill light: Motion picture film these days has almost 10 stops of latidude, while your video camera has about 4-5 on a very good day. So, use a fill light to decrease the contrast of what you're shooting.

Film is at 24, video is at 30 (well 29.97 but ...) to convert film to video they repeat every third field in what's called 3:2 pulldown. this makes film motion when transfered to video appear to 'judder' many film-look programs attempt to drop and repeat video fields to get a similar effect.

When we used to send stuff to a professional video house like the CBC, their film - look machines basically blurred every other field in order to mak it look film-like.

There are about a thousand reasons that video will never look exactly like film, but you should make your video look good through good lighting and shooting practices.

Cheers,

-ben

I've shot a bit of it, but it's neg stock, not postiive. I guess you could try developing it in reversal process, but I'm unsure if you would get good results.

as I'm sure you've heard again and again in regards to cinematography - Shoot a Test!

-ben