MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

Zodiac tech: taking a shot

From Paramount’s “handbook of production information,” director of photography Harris Savides describes in simple tech-speak how the technology used to shoot the vivid, visceral Zodiac works: “The Viper is a high-definition (HD) video camera that captures data raw—meaning the camera outputs the image data off the zodiac_97603.jpgsensor chips without modification. HD sensor chips generate tremendous amounts of data. Initially, HD cameras recorded to tape—a medium that cannot support HD’s high data rate. Camera manufacturers decided to address this drawback by compressing the data and reducing the data rate that the tape mechanism can handle. When the data is compressed, decisions about color balance, contrast, brightness, etc., must be made during the compression process. Once these decisions are made and the results compressed, any subsequent modifications degrades image quality. In effect, the filmmakers must live with what is recorded to tape. The Viper represents a drastic departure from this paradigm. Rather than making image processing decisions and then compressing the data, Viper only captures the data and outputs the unmodified, unprocessed data. Without an onboard recording device, the Viper depends on an external recording device. Filmmakers can opt to record to a tape recorder, like the Sony HDCAM tape system. In this instance, image decisions would be made and the data would be compressed. However, with the availability of S Two digital field recorders and Thomson’s Venom data recorders, filmmakers can modify the image as much as they wish without degrading the image.


Plus, filmmakers have access to the full range of image controls available from postproduction tools rather than be limited by the in-camera image controls.”
Specs:
HD to film out; 2 Thomson Viper Filmstream cameras; Each camera records into two S Two D.Mag digital field recorder; 2 x Back Focusers; 2 x Astro HD 6″ on-board monitors; and 8 x 29volt 18amp lithium batteries. Basic support: clip-on matted boxes/follow focus/baby/standard tripods/hi/low hats; 2 x O’Connor Ultimate 2575 Fluid Heads; 1 x Lambda Head. Basic filter pack: NDs/Polas/optical FLAs/Tiff Diffusions/Diopters. Lenses are all Zeiss digital primes: 5mm t1.9; 7mm t1.6; 10mm t1.6; 14mm t1.6; 28mm t1.6; 40mm t1/6; 70mm t1.6 close focus; and 2 x Zeiss 6-24mm zoom t1.9.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon