Hello,
I'm producing a film that will be shot with a canon HDV, the Xh-G1 more precisely.
My DP insist that I get an 35 mm, more precisely the Letus that she has already used. My piece is highly centered on the story and how the actors will convene the message. I've seen many pieces shot with DV cam such as Tadpole, Bamboozled and more and I'm pretty sure that no 35 mm was used. I have the feeling that a 35mm adapter was not even used for November.
If wouldn't have bothered me if Polanski had Filmed Death and the Maiden in video with no 35 mm adapter. The piece was totally carried by the performance of the actors. I was riveted for the two hours it lasted and frankly I didn't pay attention to whether or not the foreground was in focus while the background was blurred, I mean, come on!

I'm used to 16mm film so I know what my DP is talking about when she refers to the depth of field she wants in her photography. Still, I don't see the point! So the background won't be in focus while the foreground will be? And that, with everything else equal, can make a difference? Are we really kidding ourselves here?

My DP has done only two full length films and she's really giving me a break as far as her fee. Instead of her usual 650/day she's asking me 350/day because she wants to do more movies. But I have the impression that the adapter is more for her than it is for me. That piece of equipment is going to make her work look better not my story look better.

What do you think?

Also does anybody know a list of film shoot in DV or HDV with 35mm adapter?

Thanks
Larry

Hi Larry,
Your DOP want's the adapter because she wants the film to look good. If she's worried about the quality of her work, it's good for you. If it were me I would sit down with her and ask,"How many of the shots do you need the adapter for and why." And a more important question,"Do I have to buy lenses too?" If you have to buy lenses it will cost as much or more than the adapter. I use an adapter and would never give it up, I use it for everything I do, but every situation is different. Good Luck!

Sure, but again, why did Nancy Schreiber didn't use one when she filmed November with a DVX 100a? I remember the film and I have the feeling that it's her skill that made it look so good and gave her a photography award, not an adapter?

I think you shouldn't be so concerned about what other film makers used and simply consider what you want to achieve. It's important to learn from others but you must take your own path to really find out what you want from your films. If you have collaborators and want them to give their best it's generally a good idea to at least have some common goals before you set out on a film. If she wants an adaptor maybe she has a good reason but then again maybe your film doesn't need it in which case find another dop. An adaptor can be a powerful tool it's not just about out of focus backgrounds it about selective focus, drawing the eye to what you have in mind and for some eliminating that sharp video look.
Just my 2 bits

If shallow depth of field is essential to the story and the visual style you're (collectively) going for then it's worthwhile investment, but shallow depth of field is only one look, not the only look.

A bigger problem seems to be that you and the DP seem to be pulling in different directions. She has one set of priorities, you have another. Why are you so against the adapter? That's not a rhetorical question, there may be good reasons - if your DP wants such a shallow depth of field, you'd better hope she has a really good focus puller working with her. I'm not a big fan of the adapter look myself, but then being a long time Kubrick/Welles fan I'm partial to bit of deep focus. Personally I think it's way overused, (in the way that 70's movies overused zooms) in some cases making every shot look like miniature; check out this example of too much adaptorising http://www.vimeo.com/420617. There certainly is a cult of the 35mm adapter and many believe it's the default position, rather than one option now available.

However on a low budget shallow DoF can have a few serious advantages. It does do a little to take off the video curse. It means you don't have to worry about background composition and clutter as much which tends to make shots look better composed than the same shot with deep focus. It is a look people associate with a bigger budget production (Tadpole, Celebration, 28 Days Later et al all made a virtue of the low budget grungy DV look, so it wasn't an issue). For an actor centered drama shallow DoF can be useful to direct the audiences' attention where you (as director) want it.

On the other hand, if you really don't care, it might be better to defer to the DP - I'm reading a little more "what's the big deal?" in your posts rather than "this is wrong for the movie". That doesn't make you a bad director - plenty of great directors are not particularly technically minded but those directors defer to their heads of department. But at least, ask her WHY she really wants an adapter, what is the look she's going for. If her response is simply "it makes it look less like video", "It's what everyone else is doing on HDV" or "It'll make my job easier" then frankly she's not worth $350 a day.

when Nancy Schrieber shot November, 35mm adapters weren't really as widespread as they are today. Had she had the option, she may have chosen to use one. But as you say there is a LOT more to that movie's lighting than the depth of field.

Maybe you and the DP could rent an adapter and shot a couple of tests to see if it's going to work for you.

Larry, if you spot this and dont mind telling us, what was your decision on the 35mm adapter?

i'm grappling with this myself but i realised that although, for example, Phil Blooms Sony EX1 and 35mm adatepter shots are just stunningly beautiful, (but he also has a creative eye) they could for certain narrative get in the way of the storytelling.

I saw a blu-ray of The Searchers with John Wayne on a 58" plasma - pin sharp and awesome - and where shallow DOF is used to support the story, and NOT in every shot.

I was riveted for the two hours it lasted and frankly I didn't pay attention to whether or not the foreground was in focus while the background was blurred, I mean, come on!

...come on what? I fear that's a little ignorant! Heh

We don't spend thousands of dollars on this kit just so we can "notice the background is out of focus" - it's so that it looks like cinema. Features use 35mm, even digital 35mm... so we're doing the same. People notice different things. In my opinion, as an amateur cinematographer, if a film is shot on video and looks nothing like film, it just looks... crap. End of. And it's a lot less impressive. Okay, great, the actors can perform well etc etc - but this is cinema, not theatre. Which is why I personally would prefer to use 35mm - so we're not all as bonkers as you appear to make out. You just perhaps don't pay attention to the cinematography as much as the rest of us. It staggers me sometimes when people don't even know the difference between interlaced footage and progressive - now, a film shot and left in interlaced scan - THAT is crap. But that's another story...

Anyway yes, like others have said, it depends on what YOU want to achieve - perhaps you want a more theatrical production rather than a cinematic one, one that looks good photographically; bear that in mind - a 35mm will make it look photographic - video is not photographic, it's harsh and clinical and electrical and flat. So it's not just a case of "ooh look the background is out of focus, the £3000 I spent on that equipment is now justified".

...come on what? I fear that's a little ignorant! Heh

We don't spend thousands of dollars on this kit just so we can "notice the background is out of focus"...<snip>.

Actually Jonny, at the risk of being somewhat incendiary I think that's exactly what a lot of filmmakers are doing. The 35mm lens adaptor is a short cut to the cinematic look. "To hell with acting, staging, blocking, set design, lighting, etc. All I need is this thing strapped to the front of my cam and that's enough to make it a real movie" Look on vimeo, there's tons of DOF adaptor films, but they're almost all landscapes, or just test shots. People are very proud of how shallow the DOF is and how cool the Bokeh looks, but in general they're stumped as to what to do with it.

A lot of filmmakers are nervous about the black arts of directing actors (there's not even a forum on it here, usually pops up here in "techniques for independent filmmakers") or lighting, or staging a scene, or art direction, or composition, but can easily grasp a simple concept like "shallow depth of field". How come there are twice and many threads and three times as many posts under Alternative Imaging Methods (almost exclusively about 35mm adaptors, something of a minority interest really) than there are under "Photon Management" (lighting relevant to almost every live action film made, ever, regardless of whether using movie lights or natural available light)? Simple intellectually, "lighting hard, depth of field easy", the path of least resistance I guess. It's easier to drool over particular pieces of technology that appear to do the job for you (boys with toys after all) than it is to really take control of the film from a craft skills/technique/artistic point of view.

Now as I said before shallow DOF can be a very useful and important tool in filmmaking and it is associated with the cinematic look. Plus it does help with crappy composition, lighting and set design, it covers up a few sins but just looking inherently posher. Plenty of Adaptor users WAY overdo it, and I do reckon in 10/15 years time, the extreme shallow DOF look will be as dated now as the pan and zoom look is to the late 60/70s movie (and a lot of no budget/amateur filmmakers will through away their adaptors when they figure out how F*&!ing hard focus pulling is with 35mm DOF.)

Kurosawa, Kubrick, Welles, Leone, Wyler, Polanski all used deep focus frequently and I defy you to demonstrate that their films are in anyway uncinematic.

In the end all these decisions are hard, and dismissing adaptors out of hand is just as short sighted as saying "cinematic look? adaptor on, job done!"

Actually Jonny, at the risk of being somewhat incendiary I think that's exactly what a lot of filmmakers are doing. The 35mm lens adaptor is a short cut to the cinematic look. "To hell with acting, staging, blocking, set design, lighting, etc. All I need is this thing strapped to the front of my cam and that's enough to make it a real movie" Look on vimeo, there's tons of DOF adaptor films, but they're almost all landscapes, or just test shots. People are very proud of how shallow the DOF is and how cool the Bokeh looks, but in general they're stumped as to what to do with it.

I'm not a director, I'm a DoP/Camera Operator. Directing isn't my business. I work on shoots under the director. It's my job to make it look good - the DOF doesn't "make the film work" - it just makes it look better. Nobody's saying 'to hell with the acting' etc.

It's easier to drool over particular pieces of technology that appear to do the job for you (boys with toys after all) than it is to really take control of the film from a craft skills/technique/artistic point of view.

In the end all these decisions are hard, and dismissing adaptors out of hand is just as short sighted as saying "cinematic look? adaptor on, job done!"

I never said that a good DOF makes a good film regardless of the acting etc. The threadstarter however suggested the film would be just as good without good quality photography (perhaps it would be - but in most cases, 35mm does look better. It just does.)

and a lot of no budget/amateur filmmakers will through away their adaptors when they figure out how F*&!ing hard focus pulling is with 35mm DOF.

Boo hoo for them. I'd rather stick to honing the skill - if they can't be arsed to do their job, a highly respected and technical one at that, then so be it. Throw them a handycam with auto-everything and be done with it

Kurosawa, Kubrick, Welles, Leone, Wyler, Polanski all used deep focus frequently and I defy you to demonstrate that their films are in anyway uncinematic.

That's because they're geniuses - and they were still using 35mm. I'm sure there are other qualities to 35mm lenses apart from shallow DOF that give it that look. I have a 28mm with obviously a deep DOF and... it still looks better. And remember, they're ticking other boxes - they're on 35mm FILM - at least they have that box ticked - but in my opinion, video, without even a 35mm lens, for a film, just looks... cheap. In my opinion. I mean yeah you can make it look good, but only to a certain extent, I think - I'd always prefer to use a 35mm lens. I think I just have a phobia of video for film, after the amount of student films I've seen... :p </ponce>

Nobody's saying 'to hell with the acting' etc.
Sorry I guess I misinterpreted the phrase "Okay, great, the actors can perform well etc etc - but this is cinema, not theatre.". and I have read another post around here (I've tried to pull it up but to no avail) where a director said something to the effect of don't bother with pro actors, and then listed a Brevis35 as an essential part of his kit. So he certainly valued shallow DoF above acting.

I also know that a lot of big name professional filmmakers have used DV (Mike Figgis, Alex Cox, Lars Von Trier, Steven Soderberg, Danny Boyle, plenty of others) at one point or another and I'm not aware of any of them using a 35mm adaptor.

BTW in the next few years I predict a rash of badly shot "student" films using 35mm adaptors that'll trash shallow DOF's reputation for making films look cinematic: "A 35mm adaptor man? what are you doing, I don't want this to look like some student film!" :-)

Having the option of selective focus is better than not having it, but choosing when and where to use it is the true art. I've seen too many clips in the past couple of years that are clearly shot at full-open apertures even for exteriors, which gets tiresome after a while.

The factors that a 35mm adaptor bring to bear are worth considering on a low-budget shoot: a skilled focus puller is critical as was mentioned; the possibility of more lighting instruments and power needed for night interiors and exteriors, the extra time it takes to swap lenses and/or move the camera rather than set the framing with the camera's zoom.

Larry, I would suggest that you and your DP spend some time together talking about and viewing films and photography books to find a look that you both like. She needs to show you what she has in mind with the adaptor, and you can show her examples that represent the look you want. Ideally her images will perfectly complement your story and the actor's performances, and the film will be all the better for it. If you find that you are not seeing eye to eye on all this, it might be a sign that you are not meant to work together.

This is where storyboarding and planning out your shots helps; do that before picking your equipment. The great thing about these adapters is that they give us low-budget filmmakers more choices, but as many have pointed out, shallow DOF does not equal cinematic.

The 35mm adapter doesn't change anything but the depth of field. It doesn't change color or dynamic range. And, with the Canons (I work with the A1), I can get fairly decent shallow DOF with the native lens at 3.4-4.0, obviously more on the wider end.

The point is, you don't always need the adapter on. But it's a good tool to have for close-ups, for wide angles that still have a shallow DOF (such as a crane shot where the focus noticeably shifts), and to muffle the clutter of an indie set.

On the other hand, steadicam shots might work better with the adapter off, as would situations with low light -- the Letus Extreme sucks in about 1/2 a stop at least, dependent upon the lenses you use.

But never ever ever just pick a piece of equipment because you'd like to have it, and don't ever ignore a piece of equipment just because you don't see the use. Test, play, and figure it out. Find another filmmaker with the adapter your DP wants to use, and you and the DP play with it, on and off.

I think you'll both find that you don't always need the adapter for the look you want, but other times, it is a necessity.

But above all, like I said, know what you want, and know the tools that are out there to get the look you want. When you say, "That piece of equipment is going to make her work look better not my story look better," I don't understand the conflict of interest -- doesn't your story look better when her work looks better?

The 35mm adapter doesn't change anything but the depth of field.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say the 'film grain' effect of an adaptor with a spinning ground glass is almost worth it alone.

Even with my wide angle 35mm lens leaving everything in focus - as digital would - it still looks much closer to film than video.

Oops, double post...

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say the 'film grain' effect of an adaptor with a spinning ground glass is almost worth it alone.

Even with my wide angle 35mm lens leaving everything in focus - as digital would - it still looks much closer to film than video.

Yeah that's what I thought. I knew there was more to it than just shallow DOF.

Although the other posters have got me thinking now - there's a film I'm working on this July which has a Steadicam shot in it, and I have a 28mm Pentax but the thing is, I'm thinking the remote focus drive unit isn't gonna be powerful enough to drive the focus ring, 'cause it's quite stiff... wondering whether to just not use 35mm lenses at all for wide shots. But on the other hand, as you said Jon, the grain etc is noticeable - plus of course, the fact that the nature of the focus is still slightly different.

Another pain is the fact that this film I'm shooting is mainly set at night - that'll be a laugh, trying to expose it well using 35mm, but oh well.

Hmm, decisions decisions... might just have to buy another 28mm to be honest

Anyway that's my story, back to Larry :p

I hear rumblings now and then that some folks feel that you don't "need" the adaptor when doing Steadicam shots. The drawbacks that I can imagine are not having a remote focus control that is up to the task as Jonny describes (or not having one at all!) and/or not having confidence in your focus puller to be able to maintain sharps. Sometimes those perfectly practical considerations get translated upwards, where people think that we must shoot Steadicam shots on notably wide lenses or deep apertures to maximize depth of field even on big shows. As an FYI, we do neither--whatever the stop is in the scene will be maintained for Steadicam, be it T1.9 or (gulp!) less. And I have gone up to a 150mm prime on the rig (shooting concerts on video, probably longer). But this is in situations where those above mentioned caveats don't apply.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say the 'film grain' effect of an adaptor with a spinning ground glass is almost worth it alone.

Hey Jon, I agree, the light coming through that glass gets nicely bent and helps break up the sharp video image in a pleasing way. I wish I could just a get a filter that does that, a vibrating ProMist or something...

As for shallow depth of field, I prefer when it's subtle, have a harder time when it draws attention to itself.

My DP insist that I get an 35 mm, more precisely the Letus that she has already used.

Larry, if I were in your position right now I would want to know how footage shot with the Letus adaptor looks if it's projected to a large screen.

It is true, I hadn't thought of the grain.

Larry,
the only thing i can tell you is that something like 99.99% of the cinematography has the 35mm look.

You have 2 advantages with a 35mm adapter.

1) as you want to focus on actors, the shallow depth of field helps a lot to focus on certain parts of the image, focusing better on the actor.

2) You have a choice of lenses that go beyond a prosumer camera lens.

If used properly, your film will look much better, more pleasant to the eye and the brain and more professional.

Personally, i don't think that is good making a movie centered on the story and how the actors will convene the message, forgetting that it isn't a book, it's a movie. A MOVIE!

And a movie is photography + story + actors + sound.

And in this video:
http://www.vimeo.com/847969
You can see a ponderate usage of a 35mm adapter. The bokeh is sometimes very subtle, but enough to create a great space depth.
You can see many shots done with a 24mm rectilinear lens, which is impossible with a prosumer camera lens, or even most broadcast lenses.

It's not only about look. It's more natural. Our eyes focus to infinite only when they watch at the infinite. So a camera with infinite d.o.f. with a person in the foreground could be interpreted by the brain as a camera watching to the background (!!). And would be annoying and unnatural.
A 35mm adapter makes the image more logical to our brain.

Somewhat playing devil's advocate here (as I too generally prefer the 35mm look when it is done tastefully), I think you are somewhat missing the point, Giovanni. Extended depth of field can be beautiful too--we have all heard the examples such as Citizen Kane. The real key is that video tends to look better when a shallow depth of field is applied, while film can handle it either way. And I would question your "99.99%" figure--there are obviously a great many projects shot on 16mm or various video format that have made it to theatrical release, and some that are quite celebrated for their visuals.

Using a 35mm adapter is unquestionably slower which can translate into less setups per day; due to the stop loss you need a larger lighting package or a different approach for interiors and night exteriors; and particularly for a film that is intended to be projected, a skilled focus puller is desired. All of these are factors that possibly compromise the other aspects of making the film on a limited budget. If one has to drop several planned setups per day or limit the number of takes due to this compromise, how may that affect the final film? What if there is a focus buzz in the middle of the best performance (where the actor spontaneously decided to move differently than he had before, and the AC did not keep up)?

The bottom line is that a well-shot film that is otherwise lacking is not a satisfactory viewing experience for most people, even those who are enthralled by visuals (I should know, as I have a shot a number of these--read this review (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117341686.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0)of the first feature I shot on 35mm, particularly the last paragraph...) I do believe that if the DP knows what they are doing, they can make good-looking images with a 1/3" camera without an adaptor, and if that allows more time for the storytelling and performances, then it may just be a worthwhile compromise. A successful film will do much more for a DP's career and visibility than a mediocre one that happens to be good looking.

Yes, you should use an a adapter because your film will look much better. In your situation I would without a doubt. If your don't want your work to stand out don't buy an adapter.

Trust your DP. Thats why you hired her. The adapter give your DP options and if used will allow your audience to focus that much more on the acting. DOF is elementary in film language and another tool in your tool chest to help tell your story. In the end I would trust my DP. Shes is there to worry about that stuff so you don't have to- I would buy it.

Huh, this old thread. Larry (original poster), how did this all resolve for you?

If shallow depth of field is essential to the story and the visual style you're (collectively) going for then it's worthwhile investment, but shallow depth of field is only one look, not the only look.

A bigger problem seems to be that you and the DP seem to be pulling in different directions. She has one set of priorities, you have another. Why are you so against the adapter? That's not a rhetorical question, there may be good reasons - if your DP wants such a shallow depth of field, you'd better hope she has a really good focus puller working with her. I'm not a big fan of the adapter look myself, but then being a long time Kubrick/Welles fan I'm partial to bit of deep focus. Personally I think it's way overused, (in the way that 70's movies overused zooms) in some cases making every shot look like miniature; check out this example of too much adaptorising Gone in a Flash - HD on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/420617). ...

The over use of the adaptor is the long shot where the dog master is walking down the street.

For me, I always thought of that as a good use of DOF. Rather than the subject walking out of frame, he walks out of focus.

That said, there were spots where I thought the DOF could have been a bit deeper, such as the 3-shot at :17 but overall I like the DOF aesthetic on this one.

I'm probably going to get a lot of flack for this but personally I find the strong lens blur rather too artificial and a bit kitsch. This earlier quoted piece is a good example:

Gone in a Flash - HD on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/420617)

I quite like a wide depth of field and there are only a few cases, say on an actor's emotional close-up where I think mild, but not heavy, bokeh is acceptable.

But we all have our personal tastes and if all directors used a lot of lens blur it would be very dull wouldn't it?

My personal feeling is that what a lot of the adaptor users don't realise is that on true 35mm projects, the DoP is often aiming for a stop of around T4, whereas with an adaptor as you're usually loosing a stop or so of light, and you can stop down in the camera's native lens anyway, adaptor users are often using a 35mm stop of about T1.8, with the whole "The more the better" attitude, plus on some models I believe you can zoom back to create the effect of an even bigger (therefore shallower) sensor.

A friend of mine shot a pilot for a TV show (for Turkish TV) on one of these things (a Letus 35 I think) and every seemed to have a rack focus or extreme shallow depth of field set-up. It's like those 3D movies where people are forever pointing throwing things at the camera in case audience miss the effect.

If you look at the many examples from the Red One cam on Vimeo you'll see nothing like the exaggerated amount of background blur that you see in most adaptor-shot movies, and in fact on many shots the depth of field is quite deep.

I entered a 48 hour film Project which occurred last week. Before that, in May, I had shot nine days with a Letus (actually 2, as one crashed during filming) adapter in a fantasy type film, and it was clear to me that at times, the adapter created issues, and time consumption. So in the 48 hour shoot, I decided to shoot FX1 and Z1 without adapters. I did use the dreaded Cineframe24, and the end result was not half bad, considering the rush of those type of shoots.

At the screenings, I detected perhaps three of the 14 films were shot with an adapter. Two were otherwise worthy films. One made masterful use of the adapter. In the other, the DP was obviously in love with the adapter, and he rack focused constantly during conversations, racking to focus on speaker of the moment. It was distracting, and actually hurt the film, which otherwise carried a good story...

It all very much depends on what you want to achieve in your shots. 35mm adapters will help you create a depth-of-field that will help separate your subject from the foreground and background and create an "area of interest" that the audience will subconsciously focus on -- something that's seemingly difficult to achieve on the apparent inifinite DOF of 1/3" sensor cameras. It's no different from wanting to apply a back-light on your subject.

Lots of movies and TV shows use DOF techniques subtley for this very reason (just watch an episode of ER).

It all very much depends on what level of artistic merit you want to give your shots.

Lots of movies and TV shows use DOF techniques subtley for this very reason (just watch an episode of ER).

Subtle being the operative word here.

FYI, All of the interiors on ER are shot at a T4. Years ago there was an "experiment" where they knocked down every light on stage and shot at a T2.8 to make the look shallower, but just that one stop of difference meant a lot more focus issues so they went back to a T4 and that's where it stays.

Regarding Chris' notes about using adaptors for 48hr films, I used to do these with my old company Instant Films (similar competition to the 48 Hr project). I used the Mini35 adaptor a couple of times and was happy with the results but it was indeed a struggle in terms of working speed and amount of light needed. I shot a lot with the Mini35 for a few years there but very rarely "forced" the depth of field by making it noticeable, I just liked being able to subtly throw out the background.

One such film can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCf9OMYZGWk&fmt=18). The first few shots were specifically shallow to make the credits pop but after that I think you will agree that it is pretty subtle. All the scenes at the blonde girl's apartment were shot at night with a pretty minimal light kit to make it day--much harder to pull off than without the adaptor.

Hi Charles,

And you play a mean sax...

My best,

Mike

FYI, All of the interiors on ER are shot at a T4. Years ago there was an "experiment" where they knocked down every light on stage and shot at a T2.8 to make the look shallower, but just that one stop of difference meant a lot more focus issues so they went back to a T4 and that's where it stays.

How does F4 on 35mm compares to 1/3", 1/2" and even 2/3" wide open?

Edit: Answered my own questions, using the Panasonic Lumix FX35 as an example of 1/2" camera... Online Depth of Field Calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Hi Charles,

And you play a mean sax...

My best,

Mike

Okay, that one threw me--I haven't watched the film all the way through in a few years.

Of all the weird ideas I've had making films in 48 hours, thinking it would be "fun" to lay down a sax solo while we were in the final hours of editing was probably not one of the best. Talk about a left brain/right brain switcheroo. I had the composer set up a makeshift recording studio in the bathroom adjacent to my office where we were feverishly cutting/color correcting etc. and I could not have been less in the mood to make music with that time pressure, lack of sleep etc.

anyway, thanks...!

Okay, that one threw me--I haven't watched the film all the way through in a few years.
...
anyway, thanks...!

Ah, the burden of an attentive audience...

You're most welcome, and please pass to everyone a job well done. Especially Greg Malins - "leg cancer" - was really clever - it was a nice script, and it was nicely done by all.

My best for all and have a great weekend.

Mike