Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/16/20 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    On a union feature film or TV series, there are paid prep days in the budget so any testing would occur then, usually in the week before shooting begins during the camera equipment prep & pick-up if the tests are simple. It would happen within a normal 8-hour work day (hours during actual production are longer often but there is usually no reason to work more than an 8-hour day in prep.) Testing expenses have to be pre-approved by the production manager. If you had to spend your own money on something, you'd fill out a form for reimbursement.
  2. 2 points
    Sony decide to add more pages to their camera menu.s...
  3. 2 points
    Those three things are all integral to being a focus puller, so the answer is YES.
  4. 1 point
    My name is Adnan and I sent some Lomo anamorphic lenses to Van Diemen in UK for servicing and upgrading. It has been an absolute nightmare dealing with them. Please read below: In June 2018, I decided to service and rehouse my Lomo anamorphic square and round front lenses, so I personally contacted Van Diemen. Christopher at Van Diemen stated the average turn around time is 90 days for Square front rehousing (V2 version). He also stated that Round front servicing will take longer. Based on this information, I shipped the square and round front lenses to Van Diemen. Round Front lenses were returned 11 months later in May 2019 and according to Van Diemen they were fully serviced. However, one lens was never serviced as it looks identical to before shipment to Van Diemen and after receiving from them. (I'll discuss that topic in a different thread with photos for proof) 35mm Square Front 20 months later, my 35mm square front is still in Van Diemen's possession. **************************** Please read below: The excerpts are from actual email communication between myself (Adnan Siddiqui) and Christopher (owner of Van Diemen) 2018 June 7 (Month 1): Adnan - What is the conversion time from receipt of my lens to completion? I have a Lomo 35mm Lomo Square Front 35BAC10-2-1 June 18 (Month 1): Van Diemen - ....we aim to deliver conversions in 90 days from agreement of terms and receipt of deposit. July 4, 2018: Lenses received by Van Diemen. July 6 (Month 2): Van Diemen - The time to do this work is estimated at 90 days from receipt of PO and deposit payment. September 10 (Month 4): Van Diemen - ....we have parts in stock or arriving this week for the Lomo Square front conversions October 31 (Month 5): Van Diemen - We about to start on the assembly of the first batch...We would hope to be delivering these in purchase order sequence during November. 2019 January 10, 2019 (Month 10) Van Diemen - The 35mm lenses...will all be assembled in sequence yours is no 9 on the list. February 5, 2019 (Month 9) Van Diemen - The position with the Square front lenses....We should have them all done by the middle of March. Your order was 17th in the order book March 8, 2019 (Month 10): Van Diemen - The Square front Total Conversion is on the bench ready for re assembly, but will not be ready for a while longer. We have had to make some on assembly modifications....These problems have now been resolved but we have been delayed whilst new parts were awaited I will let you know when your lens is nearing completion. We do still have 7 lenses ahead of yours to build. March 26, 2019 (Month 10): Van Diemen - Your 35 is now 5th in lens for assembly. April 2, 2019 (Month 11): Van Diemen - With regards to your 35mm we have all components picked and ready for assembly. April 4, 2019 (Month 11): Adnan - I've decided to cancel the order because this is unreasonably a long wait. May 17, 2019 (Month 12): Van Diemen - Your lens has been prepared for conversion and parts allocated it currently is no 18 on the assembly list. May 17, 2019 (Month 12): Adnan - Back in Feb I was #9, then I was #5. Why I'm #18 now?.....this is too confusing. I wanted to cancel my order......there is no consistency. May 20, 2019 (Month 12): Van Diemen - We have had some technical problems to resolve in developing the total conversion of the Lomo SF lenses. May 28, 2019 (Month 12): Adnan - At this point, I do not wish to get a converted lens due to the design problems. You can do a simple PL conversion and send the lens back July 1, 2019 (Month 14): Adnan - Christopher what is the status of my lens and I did not wish to proceed with the conversion just a PL mount. I inform you that a month ago August 15, 2019 (Month 15): Van Diemen - None of these simple conversions of which work well reliably. Do we rebuild your lens as it was- this is costly in time . Who is going to pay? Do we ask you to reconsider your decision and have the work, we contracted to do for you, completed. August 19, 2019 (Month 15): Adnan - I want to have 35 mm converted but this is beyond reasonable. August 20, 2019 (Month 15): Van Diemen - ....we have now resolved the teething problems with the product and expect to catch up on the deliveries. September 16, 2019 (Month 16): Adnan - There is still no timeline provided for the service completion October 21, 2019 (Month 17): Adnan - I've been waiting for the V2 for almost 1.5 year. What is the delivery time for V2? October 22, 2019 (Month 17): Van Diemen - Your Lens remains in exactly the same place in the assembly line as it did in the beginning…..assembly time is now about 2 weeks November 2, 2019 (Month 18):Van Diemen - As soon as you confirm the order for a V2 conversion of your 35mm lens we will load the job... November 6, 2019 (Month 18): Adnan - For the 35mm, I had agreed since last year. What do you want me to confirm? Has anything changed? December 1, 2019 (Month 19) Adnan - I have not heard back from you in a month. I want to get my lens back. December 2, 2019 (Month 19): Van Diemen - The price quoted for this V2 conversion is £ 5950.00 This quotation will expire at the end of 2019 the prices for 2020 will increase. December 5, 2019 (Month 19) Adnan - I've sent you multiple messages between October and November but did not receive a reply from you. V2 for square front. This was agreed upon in July 2018!! **************************** 20 MONTHS LATER (JANUARY 2020): No response from Van Diemen. Lens is still in their possession.
  5. 1 point
    The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) has nominated eight feature films in the Theatrical and Spotlight categories of the 34th ASC Outstanding Achievement Awards. Winners will be named at the organization’s annual awards on January 25 at the Ray Dolby Ballroom at Hollywood & Highland. This year’s nominees are: Theatrical Release • Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC for “1917” • Phedon Papamichael, ASC, GSC for “Ford v Ferrari” • Rodrigo Prieto, ASC, AMC for “The Irishman” • Robert Richardson, ASC for “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” • Lawrence Sher, ASC for “Joker” Spotlight Award • Jarin Blaschke for “The Lighthouse” • Natasha Braier, ASC, ADF for “Honey Boy” • Jasper Wolf, NSC for “Monos” This is Deakins’ 16th nomination by the Society, which has sent him home a winner four times (“The Shawshank Redemption,” “The Man Who Wasn’t There,” “Skyfall,” “Blade Runner 2049”). Richardson earns his 11th nomination, while Papamichael and Prieto have each been recognized three times in the past by the organization. Sher, Blaschke, Braier and Wolf are first-time nominees. Last year’s Theatrical winner was Łukasz Żal, PSC for “Cold War,” which was also Oscar® nominated for Best Cinematography. The Spotlight Award, introduced in 2014, recognizes cinematography in features that may not receive wide theatrical release. The accolade went to Giorgi Shvelidze for “Namme” in 2019. For information regarding the 34th ASC Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography, visit www.theasc.com or call 323-969-4333.
  6. 1 point
    https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/planning/how-to-make-an-awesome-shot-list-for-your-film-or-video-project Good article on using shot lists / storyboards. My shot list is usually just some notes on a scrap paper. I could use with more organization.
  7. 1 point
    Confidence doesn't increase with time, partly because if you are any sort of career trajectory at all, there are new challenges in everything you shoot.
  8. 1 point
    That's all fine... but if you have better information, more complete, more accurate, etc. then you should post it rather than tell everyone that they are wrong.
  9. 1 point
    I think some contracts list 1.5X overtime rate after 8 hours and then 2X rate after 14 hours, knowing that 12 hours would be a typical day. That doesn't include travel time usually. Truth is that shooting really should be limited to 10 hours because of driving time and sleep, but that probably won't happen on a regular basis. It would be nice to at least implement Brent's Rule of 12-On / 12-Off. The reoccurring 14-hour day with the hour drive home at each end and a forced turnaround the next day is a recipe for an accident.
  10. 1 point
    A basic film work day is 12.5 hours (with .5 being lunch, unpaid) And your day rate already factors in the overtime after the 8th hour. So for example, if I'm making 800/12, then on my time-card I would put $57.14/Hr as my hourly pay. You get this by dividing the day-rate by 14 for a 12 hour day and that takes into account 1.5x time and the 2x time. Many shoots, especially music videos, it seems will go into 14 or even 16 hour days, on occasion. And this is paid as over-time like anything else. This applies to most everyone on set who are, by law, employees and not independent contractors, and therefore must be paid over-time. Now a LA-Centric thing will also add 1 hour to the work day, unpaid, on each end, for your travel to and from location, generally, as well as the getting to set 15 minutes early and the often 15 min or so of B/Sing with the crew or talking with the producers and director after wrap (but off of the clock, generally) about whatever. And for myself, maybe another 30 ish to 45ish minutes at home after going over the day in my head or prepping for tomorrow, in my head. So, on some shows you may be putting in 19 hours in a day (or more) to just that one shoot. And they wonder why everyone is so upset when there isn't breakfast and coffee RTS before call. .
  11. 1 point
    I think this is very true.. the one DoP that I knew early days, that became "famous".. was without fear .. he purposely did things that would be difficult ..to achieve what he wanted .. not just for the hell of it .. he made some mistakes in the early days.. and got some flak from more conservative directors .. took the constructive criticism non personally .. and could filter out what he knew was just other peoples taste ..or lack there of.. I learnt alot from him but unfortunately not the fearlessness .. some people just have that..
  12. 1 point
    Most artists are their own worst critics. I think a lot of us got into this work because we want validation, attention, praise, etc. We're insecure. So criticism can confirm our worst fears and doubts. However, we have to try and step back and look at criticism for what value it brings in terms of self-improvement and reject whatever is ultimately irrelevant. Personally, I know my own weaknesses, I know what I need to do to get better -- the hard part is moving forward, being active, breaking bad habits. But also at some point, you start to see that some criticism is off-base, it's just someone's personal taste being expressed that has no connection to who you are. It's like when you shoot something stylized and someone complains that it isn't realistic enough. You can't please everyone. We all make mistakes but the solution isn't to play things safer to avoid making them.
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    I’m not a cinematographer, but one of the most things I’m afraid of in any creative endeavor is being told that I didn’t do a good job. People telling me that my work is not good either directly or indirectly, is not only hurtful, but embarrassing. When someone tells me something I did is bad or doesn’t work, I feel embarrassed I didn’t know that before they told me. Like I should’ve been smarter about it, or I should’ve known it didn’t work because this was my field and I should know when something doesn’t work.
  15. 1 point
    To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld (of all people), the fear of the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. The readiness is all, to quote another tragic figure...
  16. 1 point
    If i am in any way incapacitated and cannot work, I'm screwed. That's my biggest fear.
  17. 1 point
    A lot of this is about CONTRAST. Imagine if you were lucky and the real sun was shining through a small window in a dark room. How intense would it be relative to the shadowed areas of the room? Usually it’s pretty hot, hard to balance against. An 18K HMI several feet outside a window at full flood (in order to get the sharpness of sunlight) is not as bright as real sunlight, and maybe you’re trying to create this effect with an even smaller unit, so it’s about trying to give the impression that your “sunlight” is hard to compete with — you let it go overexposed to some degree and you let the surrounding space fall off quite a bit. If you balance things too well, it starts to feel artificial.
  18. 1 point
    It’s the same sensor, which is 1.54:1 full aperture, it’s just passed QC to allow the full height for 4x3 use.
  19. 1 point
    Sharing this music video I directed and shot some of the 4x3 footage, Mark Putnam was DP on this. Shot on 5207 and 5219 and scanned on my scanner. I recommend watching in 4K or 2K since the film grain is not totally eradicated from the YouTube re-encoding at those resolutions. 1080 looks really bad. I noticed that most music videos, even big artists never upload 2k or 4K, looks much better for Youtube.
  20. 1 point
    Another thing which I think helps greatly to sell a sunlight effect is making sure that whatever fill you use is coming from an appropriate angle. If the sun is hitting the floor, or low down on a wall, having the fill come from a similar angle will look a lot more realistic than filling from a perfect 45º angle. In terms of exposure, in real sun there is usually about 3 stops difference between metering towards the sun and away from the sun. With a backlit actor, I would usually split the difference so that their face is 1.5 stops under, and the sun on the back of their head is 1.5 over. That's roughly where I would choose to expose simulated sun as well, as long as it's not a front lit scene.
  21. 1 point
    I'm only guessing but judging by the table shadow on the floor, I suspect a soft box above the table, the same shape and size more or less, with a skirt... but somehow a 650w or 300w tungsten fresnel mounted in the center under the box to spot the table. Of course, that's hard to do without raising the soft box higher to make room for the hanging fresnel and keep it all above the frame line. Another possibility is three lights with Chimeras, one for each person, and the center top light hard for the table. The Chimeras would all be in a semi-circle around the center down light. Or instead of Chimeras, three skirted paper lanterns. But that neat shadow behind the table on the floor suggests a skirt around a big soft box to me. If you couldn't rig to the ceiling and had to use long menace arms from the foreground to reach over the table, then I'd suggest the three keys for the three people be something like a 2'x2' Litemat with snap grids to save weight. But you'd still need that hard center top light, something with barn doors or black wrap to keep it off of the people. Or put some white up there on the ceiling and skirt the sides and back edge with some lightweight black material (that nylon-like ripstock or plastic tablecloth material you can get at restaurant supply stores) that can be taped, and then use a Source-4 Leko or two to hit the white ceiling bounce material. Then menace arm the little downlight (if you are shooting on a sensitive digital camera, it could be more like a 200w or 150w Dedo, etc.)
  22. 1 point
    Hardest job on the set .. made me a nervous wreck.. I recommend going straight to operating .. its easier .. 🙂
  23. 1 point
    I'm selling my Arri MB-18 Mattebox, it's in excellent condition and comes with the following: - 3 stage rotating mattebox, swing away 19mm rod setup. - 3 horizontal 4x5.65 trays - 3 vertical 4x5.65 trays - comes with top, bottom and side flags - hard matte set - Mastercase travel case; newly re-foamed. image album here: https://imgur.com/a/hN0peXO Edit: Also comes with two 19mm rails 17" long. Filmtools website has more information about this mattebox: https://www.filmtools.com/arri-mb-18-matte-box-10441.html $3000 firm or open to trades. Item is located in Los Angeles.
  24. 1 point
    People are using it, we have thousands of feet of 16mm and about 70 S8 cartridges we are working on running in E6 this week.
  25. 1 point
    I’d love to see a thin but wide-aperture source, with a tight beam. Something the size of a Kino tube, in 2’, 4’ and 8’ lengths, but with a tight beam (something like a 20 degree beam angle, or even tighter). Combining the wrap of a tube light, with the control of a spotty source would be quite unique. And so much more controllable than a Kino/Quasar tube.
  26. 1 point
    What's more useful than a lighting technology is a way of standardising the response of cameras to lights. This is somewhat akin to what Kino-Flo has done with the Celeb series. It's very, very very subtle, but it'd be good to see someone do that work and release the data. That would be actually useful. P
  27. 1 point
    Find a better location? Otherwise I think you have to embrace the starkness. At best, you can shoot towards the patio doors and silhouette the room. Or shoot at twilight and silhouette most of the people. Or light it for hard moonlight but you'd need a few strong lamps on high stands. Try and shoot in side-light or silhouette in back-light, flag off the light from off-camera windows and use blacks near faces for negative fill.
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    You need a fork lift to move a 70mm IMAX print
  30. 1 point
    Hm, well how much of the room are you trying to light? Do you think you need the 12x12 overhead source for the scene, or would the 8x8 overhead bounce be big enough? There would be less spill on the walls with the 8x8. If you go with the overhead 120Ds thru the 12x12 grid, I think the look may be a bit harsher than the bounce or the Quasar tubes and you’ll only have two spotted areas to play with, but maybe that’s ok depending on the blocking and the look you are going for. I’m not very familiar with the Aputure lights, so maybe you can spread them over short distance more than I’m imagining. Personally, I would see if you can use the crossbeams as rigging points for the Quasars, then clip up the grid cloth below it with spring clamps. Since you have so many possible mounting points in the ceiling, it looks like it would be pretty easy to add skirts if needed.
  31. 1 point
    Well, school isn't a great way to learn cinematography. Maybe the basics of cinema, but actual cinematography requires experimentation and working with a professional cinematographer and learning. The only good thing you can do with a MFA degree is teach, otherwise it's a waste of money and time. Remember, the longer you aren't working, the less people will know about your work. Wanna be a cinematographer? Buy a decent camera and go shoot stuff! Wanna learn more? Work on low-budget film sets for free as an intern and learn. Wanna get really good? Find a mentor, even in a different country, someone who can train you the last bit you won't know. Wanna work in the industry? Ya need a damn good demo reel and probably need to permanently live somewhere there is a need for cinematographers, like central Europe, US, Canada, Australia, etc.
  32. 1 point
    It depends on the situation for the monitor, its size, and what you need it for ultimately. I've found the Ultralight design the most useful for mounting: https://www.ulcs.com/ Cages for monitors are becoming more common and make mounting easier! https://www.smallrig.com/cages/monitor-cage.html
  33. 1 point
    The wide shot with the windows looks more like optical filtration to me -- blue-ish halation around windows is harder to recreate digitally though possible. The blue cast to the glow tends to be an artifact of whatever mist particles are being used in the glass. You'll note that breathing on the lens also creates a halation with a blue bias, so clearly water droplets have a tendency to shift the color in that direction. I suspect older optics were employed in those photos too. The images almost look like they were rephotographed off of a groundglass on the back of a large format camera., there is so much fall-off.
  34. 1 point
    The early Pictorialism movement in photography diffused the image in various ways -- soft-focus lenses, nets and gauzes over the lens, glass diffusion, etc. It had an impact on cinematography of the mid-1920's through early 1930's, after still photography had become sharper in style. And you had in the 1970's that David Hamilton style of foggy photography for commercials and art. I've used filters sometimes in front of the lens, or just breathed on the lens just before taking the photo, like here:
  35. 1 point
    In Lightroom, if you go in the negative direction with Clarity, you get a diffusion effect. Here is a photo I took on an infrared-converted Sony A6500, one with Clarity in the positive direction, the other with Clarity in the negative direction on the slider:
  36. 1 point
    It's funny you noticed that the table tennis matches the clothes in color -- we joke about that because sometimes the production designer and the costume designer don't know what colors each will be using for the scene, and you get these combinations that seem coordinated. We had a scene in an empty white apartment on location and the production designer decided to throw a pink carpet over the wooden floors because they were too beat-up, and then our actress walks in in a pink coat. And because I couldn't control the light coming through the windows on the fifth floor of this building, I had real sunlight hitting the pink carpet and adding pink light into the scene, filling the back white walls with pink. It all seemed intentional!
  37. 1 point
    Interview with CATHERINE LUTES CSC: CINEMATOGRAPHER LIFESTYLE https://anchor.fm/cinematographer.lifestyle Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id1457497882 Android: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy85ZGYwM2EwL3BvZGNhc3QvcnNz Spotify: If you enjoy this podcast, please share. Not for profit, if it gets enough views, I'll keep it going. Cheers ♥ 🙏 Justin Lovell Associate Member of the Canadian Society of Cinematographers
  38. 1 point
    Probably worth trying until the RED cinema "Super Death Battle War Skull Face" 16K camera comes out next year with its 37.5 stops of dynamic range, rendering such things as ND obsolete
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
    I was referring the outer dimensions of the lens part of the mount and what the individual tolerances control image-wise. Basically the barrel diameter is important and the flange bottom surface position in relation to the optical center is important. otherwise it is basically just if it's too large to fit the camera or if the flange is too thick or thin to lock securely.
  41. 1 point
    You can get colour golf tees by the 50 pack for a few £ / $ - Check the sort of turf will be ok with being skewered. I'm sure sausage marks would be fine for dolly and crane marks. Metal T's are great, lots of gravity to them. Rubber marks are a good DIY option. Spray chalk is a thing. canned air held upside-down to freeze it then brush it loose for when you're done. I'm sure most 2nd ACs will have that sort of thing in their kit already or given notice could sort out such things for you.
  42. 1 point
    golf tees with some bright color tape on top?
  43. 1 point
    If you can shoot 3.2K ProRes, then you have some flexibility to crop the sides if using 2X anamorphics on a 16x9 sensor to get decent resolution for a 1080P master. If you are going to crop all the way to fill a 16x9 HD image without letterboxing, then the 3.2K ProRes recording is 3200 x 1800 but cropped to 1600 x 1800 and then expanded horizontally back to 3200 x 1800 to get rid of the 2X squeeze and then rescaled to 1920 x 1080.
  44. 1 point
    Some pages from CineMagic, Issue #1 (1979), an article on some guys who created new effects for "Rocketship X-M" with the help of Dennis Muren:
  45. 1 point
    Get subscriptions to American Cinematographer Magazine and the IATSE Local 600 magazine, ICG. Articles therein cover the subjects you mention in depth.
  46. 1 point
    My suggestions: Blain Brown "Cinematography: Theory & Practice" Blain Brown "Motion Picture and Video Lighting" Kris Malkiewicz "Film Lighting" "Cinematography: Third Edition" by Malkiewicz and myself covers basic 16mm cinematography and lighting, so is a good intro.
  47. 1 point
    So, I recently re-watched "HP:5" and I was being too harsh. There's actually a lot of nice work with color that's rather subtle, like the bluish/lavender shadows in the "Room of Requirement" scenes and the slight yellow/green tinting in the "Dept. of Mysteries" scene. It's pretty clear that Idziak thinks about color a great deal and doesn't need his krazy kollection of custom filters to create the "Slawomir Idziak" look. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I was wrong!
  48. 1 point
    Idziak uses colored grad and ND filters heavily. Color gels on lights too. Most of the look is done in camera. Are coloured grad 85A, B, C etc., but have a different density at top to bottom? How do you feel about colour in your work David, is it dependant on the project or do you have perticular style where colour is concerned?
  49. -1 points
    Which was unfortunate, since the look of Harry Potter 5 was pretty bland compared to the rest of his work, IMO.
  50. -1 points
    I have posted on the sites I mentioned, but have been ignored. Just a warning not to believe everything you read on the internet.
  • Create New...