soupkitchen

Ok you need at least a raid-5 for redundancy if you are making a feature. Don't cheap out and just buy single hard drives because in the end, you will either spend as much replacing failed ones or lose critical data.   If your iMac has thunderbolt get one of the Promise Pegasus raids you can buy on the apple store. They are fast enough for your needs and pretty cost effective for what you are doing. Then buy some single drives for transport, maybe a 2tb one for rushes backup and another 2tb one for everything else. Ideally get 2 of each and have two levels of redundancy for every backup.   If you have the money or can find a place that hires them, get an LTO4 or 5 to back up your rushes to either as you shoot or at the end of the shoot so that you have a verified tape that will last 30 years or so if all your drives fail.   Good luck,   Toby

PPS. Don't be shy Leang, add your vimeo etc to your signature. You have some decent stuff and it's refreshing to see a vimeo page not just full of lens tests and all that crap.

Ok Leang, a couple of things. And I mean this all in truly the most positive way I can. I THINK what you are saying with this is that as a gaffer Miranda had a hand in the look of Fincher's previous films before he got a chance to shoot Benjamin Button with him. The only place you will find a gaffer having as much creative control as you assume is at film school or on a low budget film where the gaffer's experience vastly outweighs the DP's and they go about setting the lights as they see fit without input. I watched the trailer for your film. If you came to me and said the gaffer had a bigger hand with how your film is lit than the DP, I would tell you to fire the DP.   Harris Savides, Jordan Cronenweth and Darius Khondji are all DPs with recognisable personal styles that tend to transcend the film or director they are working with. Now while most DPs have preferred gaffers, they are still the person telling them what to light and often how to do it. More importantly, preferred gaffers learn what DPs like and can often pre-set lights in a particular dp's style, but that is different to being the creative force behind the lighting.   Also, seriously check Sean's IMDB page before lecturing him. Seriously. It makes you look bad, just firing off insults about experience when you have very little and he has lots. Even in the low budget digital film making, he's made more features than you so, think on that.   Cheers,   Toby   PS, I'd love to see your trailer with english subtitles to know what's going on. Also in the Bendeyar trailer and in the Ã‡anakkale Åžehitlerine (Erkan Mutlu) clip there is a whole lot of post softening going on with people's faces. Was that your call or someone else's. Full props for making a feature. I haven't. Yet ;)

I don't care where he is born. I'm Australian. I don't like his work. I also don't think he deserved an Oscar. I don't think he was the person in control of the shots after they were lit and therefore he shouldn't be given credit for the final look of the film. I don't mean awards, I mean credit. Perhaps Chilean born is intended to indicate that he isn't Spanish, Mexican, Italian or anything else. There is nothing racist or sub-textual about that. And the wizard thing? Have you not learned that the internet is fairly conservative in its gender rolls, and also for a bunch of nerd guys who shoot camera tests, saying he looks like a wizard is unlikely to be genuinely pejorative?   Also I don't understand what you mean by 'blatant cinematography improvised at an amateur level'. Do you mean it is badly shot or do you mean they chose to shoot with an 'amateur', unpolished aesthetic that doesn't work for you? I would like a little clarification to understand your point as Coppola hasn't made a good film in 20 years and I'm not going to subject myself to this one to check it out ;)   Also, like I've said before, if you are going to make assertions about the real world of film making please put a link to your work or imdb page in your signature. It is nice to be able to give your pronouncements some context. Plus we are all here to learn and share.

  Yeah but he wasn't composing the frames or lighting the final shots or grading the film was he? If anything he came in to R&H and spent a day or two telling the lighting or environment dept how he would light a scene. None of the actual physical lighting is that remarkable. He was getting a good evenly lit bluescreen and an image that would take well to grading. Luckily no-one really takes the Academy awards seriously these days do they?

Ha, yep. I got to the stage where I couldn't be bothered waiting for another NAB to roll around.

Unless this is too late, I recommend the Kinotehnik one. The mount is also so well thought out.   I have only used the LCDVFe and the Alphatron and I found the lag on the Alphatron to be enough to be distracting. Also unless you spring for a proper mount like the solid camera one, be ready for a world of frustration as magic arms just won't hold as well as you want them to.

You are forgetting the Kinotehnik LCDVFe. Hands down the best EVF I have used, with preset desqueezes as well as manual too.

I came on here to see what people thought of the way the film looked and all I got was pages of argument based on textbook ideas.   My 2 cents. The film was insanely dull, yet still his best film since Pulp Fiction. Why do Americans fall down swooning every time Tarantino makes another long indulgent piece of crap. Robert Richardson top lights too much for my taste and aesthetically the film was pretty bland. For me it was a reminder of how beautifully composed the films he was referencing were, and how as a director I don't think he has the chops to do more than emulate better directors.   Leang that is an awesome picture btw.   Cheers,   Toby

the A-cam is plenty good enough right now. :)

A just shot a clip with an Ikonoskop and tested a BMC. One seems to be a camera designed by and aimed at professionals that know how to shoot and expose and the other is a first take engineering exercise that has a great image with room to save you if you over expose.   I'd be interested to know what build of resolve you were using, and what ikonoskop fw as the last resolve update really corrected the magenta issue. (which is a raw setting issue rather than something in the camera). I can't post the clip for copyright reasons (I will when I can) but I was shooting into the light for the whole day and there were no issues with one quadrant smearing more than the others or being able to pick out the join. That video above  is also 10 months old which, as we all know is like 5 years in digital. I'd be interested to know if the reason I didn't have any problems is a building refinement or firmware refinement.   As a production camera, the ikonoskop wins hands down compared to the BMC. The A-Cam has been designed by people who shoot handheld and it feels that way. The DR is absolutely fine for any DP worth their salt and the way everything you need to access while shooting is right at your fingertips is fantastic. Add to that the IMS mount, which is so incredibly practical and obvious I can't get over that no-one has done it sooner. I w   The BMC though, from the way the SSD flops around inside its recess to the odd menu choices and body design, much like DSLRs, it is a camera that makes decent images in spite of itself ;) Pretty much the minute I picked one up I knew I had made the right decision cancelling my order*   Anyway they are both pretty incredible for the price but as soon as you pick either one up, you understand why they cost what they cost AND why one is more expensive. (cos it's so much nicer)   *disclaimer: I ordered a BMC pretty much on day one. I swapped over to the MFT mount on day one of that. I had already bought a cage, batteries, mounts and lenses for it and it was a sad day when I cancelled my order. In case you think I'm just a hater.

Um, rich that isn't shot with an anamorphic lens.   The Foton is a spherical zoom that was coupled with a 2x anamorphic adaptor but he's not using it. If he was he would be cropping anyway as the video isn't the right aspect for 2:1 on a 16:9 sensor but he even says on the vimeo page that it is spherical.   Cine zoom lenses will cover the full stills35 sensor (as opposed to cine) as you zoom in because, well, you are zooming in on the image and the projected image plane gets bigger as you zoom in.   So maybe the advice for the thread starter is just buy old, lovely, cheap spherical glass and frame and crop to your desired size? ;)

But isn't vimeo and bokeh the main goal Burnet? ;) And lens flares. Don't forget lens flares.     Nothing is going to work as well as Iscoramas on full frames. Lomos are designed for 35mm motion picture film which is half frame anyway and aren't worth the trouble until we have 4:3 sensors. But I reckon now the Alexa has gone 4:3 there will be a move back to that sensor ratio from everyone else.         I'm not sure you will keep to that. Anamorphics seem to be a slippery slope dude.   For me at least the thing with the LA7200 and diopters is that even shelling out for the adapter and a 138mm .5 filter and +1 achromat will still be cheaper than an Isco these days. Hell, I'm looking for someone to rehouse the adapter and make it more matte box friendly so I can just drop diopters in but even paying for that conversion I'll still be significantly under the price of an Iscorama.

Or he could do like, 2 seconds of research and get some diopters. Then you can get sharp focus at f2.8 and use wider lenses. But that's ok, you weren't to know richg101.

Burnet I don't think practicality is part of the whole, 'projection anamorphics on DSLRs' thing is it? ;)   Germy1979 I would honestly look for a Panasonic AGLA7200 as you will be able to use a wider variety of lenses, and indeed wider lenses, than most of the alternatives.

Forgot to add, love the grade.

You don't need a steadicam, just a decent shoulder rig with some weight on it. That will steady you up enough.

This is fantastic, though I'm just going to put this alternative out there....   Operator pulls focus on the lens, and a focus puller does the adapter. Chinagraph or old fashioned triangles of camera tape for marks on each side, done.

Pics or it didn't happen ;)

Looks great but I'm trying to get my head around your LA7200 mods. Care to put up some pics of them? I'm thinking about modding mine to fit behind a proper Matte box but am too scared to do it!

Oh and Fugue, thanks for bringing it back on topic.

See all this crap is why I usually avoid forums. Thanks Burnett for answering my questions.   Slightly less thanks to OverCranked for initially answering my question then going on a rant about something un--asked for.   Props to Tony for his always impeccable spelling.

I keep debating wether to buy the shooters guide from here but wanted to ask some questions of you all. I'm not trying to start anything and will probably end up buying it purely to support the site but anyway here are my questions.   Have many people on here bought it and do they find it useful?   Are there any film (rather than video) professionals with an understanding of anamorphics on here and have they bought it and has it brought anything new to the table for them?   I just worry a bit what I'll be getting when the Blade Runner aspect ratio example is out by .31 (or .46 for 70mm)   Anyway, just asking. I love this forum and it has been very informative and helpful so far so, be nice to me ;)   Cheers,   Toby

Love the trailer! Where oh where did you find the .3 diopter though???

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353034256' post='21738'] I want them to package this as one lens with the prime and anamorphic focussing as one unit. [/quote] That's a nice idea but unless they want to make an anamorphic zoom, it's going to be too limiting to only have one lens. If they had that AND an adaptor so that you had the same coatings/quality then that would be ideal. And if that adapter has to be dual focus OR focus through and needing more light, I'll take that hit for consistency's sake.