M Joel W

The "turning point" thing is good advice. Most scenes that don't place a strong cut at the turning point still indicate it one way or the other. Regarding your earlier comment that blocking is lacking, how do you suggest directors learn to block? Which directors do you watch as reference? Spielberg and Zemeckis I often hear cited, but what sets their blocking, or the blocking of those directors whose work you most appreciate, apart? What ads are particularly well blocked?

It's subjective, rent both cameras and try them out. Not sure what "two stop" difference you're referring to. Both have a similar base ISO and equally as much dynamic range when treated properly in post. Ok... Red claims 13.5 stops, but every reliable test puts both at about 12. That's still a lot. I have my own biases, but you can do good work with both. I find the post workflow on Red to be unpleasant UNLESS your post house is very comfortable with it or you're shooting yourself with a system designed for it. I also find that Canon's cameras are much cleaner at extreme ISOs than the competition. You can punch in more with the Scarlet and adjust white balance in post better, etc. The C300 is a good documentary/ENG-style camera for a small crew and the Scarlet isn't as good for that. Obviously the Scarlet has a nice resolution advantage for vfx.

Thanks! You're right... I will need to decide for myself. I owe you a beer when I get out there, btw. I hear they have Pliny in LA?

Thanks, I have my AC and grip bags I always bring with me anyway, and cuts of my favorite gels. Know how that is. I usually just wet hire at a specific rate and bring what's necessary, but right now it's not my "day job" so I'm not as careful with pricing as I should be on some stuff. Particularly narrative. :unsure: Out of curiosity... I haven't shot a feature in years and nothing too "big" ever, as shooting has not been my career. I wasn't able to support myself right out of school as a DP so I did post. How much would it matter adding a $500,000 made-for-tv movie to one's credits if one's reel is already strong enough without it, but one's resume is lacking in recent feature credits? I do have recent second unit credits on movies of that size or larger, a perquisite provided to me by my job, and they have hinted that if they find low end enough work they might toss me a feature credit, but it's something they've hinted at before and failed to deliver on... If a credit of that size is worth it, maybe I can stick around the year in distant hope. The contract isn't even written up yet for them to produce a lower-budget feature, let alone hire me to shoot it. I don't know why I'd bother, but it's the one thing other than saving up some money that is keeping me at my current job and in the long run I would suck it up if it gave me a better shot as a shooter later.

Look at what people are renting... what there's demand for. Assuming you're planning to rent. If you're working as an owner/op and want to work purely on the basis of what you deliver (and not on what camera you own), of course it's up to you! I think the market for the Alexa has stayed strong for quite a while but it is finally waning. Seeing some VERY affordable Alexa packages on the east coast for the first time. The Epic is of course a dime a dozen now. Red cameras seem to be very hot while a new technology is unavailable but then the market is quickly flooded, wheras fewer people buy Alexas... so while they are cheap now they didn't used to be. I think with digital cameras it's wise to buy at the beginning of a product cycle if you're looking to rent, wise to buy at the end if you want a fun cheap camera for your own personal use. I would not buy either camera right now, but then again I couldn't afford one. Personally I'm an Alexa fan (and quite like what I've seen of the F55, though I've yet to use one), but the Dragon does look cool!

Thanks! I am a C100 owner/op (and own a fair amount of lighting and G&E gear)... I am told that this makes me look "low end," but at the same time I get more of a fee for a wet rental than a dry rental. How different is the owner/op market from the straight DP market? Can I use the camera to get extra work? I like corporate/ads a lot because they are short-term with decent rates. As for networking, it's difficult where I live now as there is no industry here. But I do have friends on the opposite coast already. :)

Hi, I'm moving to the west coast within the next few months to begin pursuing a career as a DP, which has been something I've wanted to do for years but never thought to actually try. :) What I'm not asking for is anything EXCEPT help with logistics for supporting oneself in the meantime and tips for networking. I do have a pretty big network out there already, but I'd like to know how to rise up the ranks and also how to support oneself. I have a LOT of knowledge about post and have color graded a number of reasonably successful made-for-tv features and done compositing, often all the compositing, for them. This is my day job currently. How does one rise up the ranks in a totally new community? My goal is to be a commercial DP primarily, but I'll always love narrative of course. Try to shoot student shorts at major schools and see where they go? Work as a first or a second? In which case… how does one learn to first or second better? I have done both just a tiny bit, but am not experienced at either yet. Start again as a trainee? Shoot when you can and support yourself with other work? My day job is compositing and color, but I want to switch to camera. While I'm just trying to get by... work for central casting/the black list/or get a job at a local post house? I don't want to regress too far... I am giving up a good post job to do this, but it is my dream. Any tips? I do have friends out there with whom I hope to shoot, but no one terribly established yet, and I do know some DPs there with whom I hope to meet up shortly after the move. Thanks all. I shot a few features a while ago, but have mostly been doing shorts and spec stuff (because my schedule is too hectic) also second unit on a few features. Thanks!

Where is this available and is it expensive? Does it work with the C100 and/or 5D Mark III? Also agreed... the camera has nice colors and good lattitude.

Operators I know who know better than I do (as in, they're working on things you might actually have watched) prefer not to use IS at all for dSLR video, as the algorithm is unnatural and twitchy for some lenses. However, dSLRs are skewy and small so there's definitely a need, imo. I find that for the 17-55mm lenses it's not really necessary and for the longer ones it does help. I recently shot a lot on my C100 with the 70-200mm pre-IS as a B cam with the A cam being a shoulder-mounted Alexa and found I could get an ok level of stability with a cheesy Zacuto rig, although the Alexa was still much more stable. So improving how you operate might be the first step and more effective than getting IS on every lens. There's a $25 shoulder rig on Amazon that's really quite nice. I'd recommend that over looking to get IS on every lens. Also, for ultra wides it's totally unnecessary, imo. That said the 70-200mm f2.8 IS is on my wish list!

Yep. I usually count on about 2000w per circuit (or one M18 or 1.2k HMI) in modern locations. I'd be more conservative if you don't have access to the circuit breaker and/or don't know which outlets draw from where. Fluorescent lighting is surely more efficient, but ballasts draw more amps than the lights' wattage would indicate and often fluorescent light isn't really as bright as you'd expect. Color rendering of a good CFL is fine in isolation (though it won't match tungsten exactly if there are practicals or other sources in frame), but what's more efficient: spending $200 getting fluorescent work lights with questionable CRIs or spending $20 on a 500w or 1000w work tungsten work light and using $0.03 more electricity? If your camera is even decently power efficient you'll do fine with tungsten and get a legitimately better, warmer look. If your camera is extremely slow (low ISO) you might need to make some compromises in terms of how you light. Just by pure coincidence, I noticed that someone build a makeshift book light as I described above: http://mattscottvisuals.com/lighting/2013/3/11/diy-beauty-lighting The article is pretty silly. It's just a book light! But it shows that it works.

This will work, but I'd recommend against work lights (or if you get them, get halogen for cheaper and better color rendering). I like chinese lanterns as a cheap option (used in the highest budget movies because they work), but I bet you want softer... Bounce your lights into bead board (white side) for more punch than using diffusion with a decent amount of softness (back the light and board up as needed, remember that softness is predicated on how big the source looks from the perspective of what it's lighting) and without worrying about melting your makeshift gels. http://heatandnoisecontrol.com/Categories/discount_once_used_rigid_foam_board_insulation~7.html Bead board is $10 for an 8X4 at home depot. Cut it up in the store and fit it in your car. Bead board and chinese lanterns are Home Depot-budget items that are used on the biggest sets. They are cheap and cheaper still because you will continue to use them even after adding more expensive gear to your arsenal. Imo. But bouncing into bead is my choice. Add a shower curtain way up front to make a makeshift book light if you need super soft.

Thanks... my hope is that by shooting with a 360º shutter (1/720) we shouldn't get as much flicker. We'll know soon enough. We have some plug ins to adjust in post. That looks okay... we would be happy with something similar.

I agree with the above... on camera lights can be problematic. (And ring lights are generally used for beauty/glamor and impart an unnatural look that's more hip hop than bar mitzvah.) You also might want to check out cinema5d or dvxuser for that kind of info... However, since my other life is as a C100/5D Mark III owner/op, I have some experience with this stuff. (Professional DPs here generally do much higher end work than us and our questions don't interest them!) I own this: http://www.amazon.co...&pf_rd_i=507846 ...and generally dislike it. It's unreliable and the quality of light is harsh. However, it's very bright and you can switch the color temperature with great control. I don't think it would look very good used at an event, except maybe if you were able to wrap it in black wrap to stop it from spilling and bounce it off the ceiling or otherwise soften it very heavily. I'd just embrace the dark look, though TBH with a fast lens (f1.4) you should be fine at 1250ISO/f1.4/1/30sec shutter/HTP off for virtually any interior event photography, just embrace the darkness past that point and don't push further or you will get an ugly picture. For sound the zoom h4n is the thing to get, though other brands have recorders with superior pre-amps. On-camera pre-amps save a lot of time and can work well, too. The old beachteks were terrible but they have improved. I can't recommend a shotgun (the ME66 seems okay, but not my area of expertise here), but the Sennheiser lavs are wonderful. The $25 cowboy studio shoulder rig is very nice for run-and-gun and balances well with dSLRs.

Boston. Renting the ts3cine. Budget is very tight... nearest Arri FF ballast is in Detroit, or so says Arri. Our current plan is to run the camera with a 360º shutter and dial down the frame rate until flicker is mitigated. Shutter will be 1/720sec, not that bad. Lights are an M40 (or M25) and daylight kinoflos. If we had more money we'd be shooting with a Phantom and proper lights, but we don't... Any advice much appreciated. Director is okay with a little flicker since this is a horror montage cut to dubstep and there will be distress effects applied in post, too. Shutter on camera is global, too, so no artifacts beyond flicker.

I'm shooting a short video on the ts3cine. The location has a ton of natural light and it's a day interior. I'm scouting the location for light levels under various lighting conditions (overcast, full sun) to make sure we have the stop for high speed and that the sun will be out long enough, etc. We're shooting at 750fps/f2.8/ISO800 and of course stopping down as need be if there is more light than is necessary. I want to light primarily with natural light as the space is too big to light with HMIs but we have the option of bringing in whatever HMIs we can drive off an unmodified 6500 EU for fill. We also have two fat men kinoflos for fill, both with daylight bulbs of course. I'm working out my ratios and whatnot on my own but what I am worried about is FLICKER!!!! Which HMIs are appropriate for 750fps? I fear electronic ballast HMIs still won't be fast enough due to subtle flicker and arc wavering. My top choice is the M18, as I think I can run that and two four banks without blowing the gennie up, and I need to be conservative since it's the old ballasts that aren't power factor corrected or whatnot... But I am afraid this will flicker terribly. Anyone have any advice? Any experience using HMIs for high speed? Again 750fps (1/1500 shutter) and an M18 is the current plan.

A camera is Alexa. Shooting at 800 ISO. To prores.

 B camera is either Scarlet or C300. Shooting at 800/850 ISO. External recorder capturing prores.

 The cameras are meant to match and there is time for a grade but no time for a beauty pass to emulate the Alexa's built-in halation simulating filter. I want to put a filter on the B camera to emulate the halation filter on set. Two problems present themselves:

 A filter in front of the lens should be stronger at 200mm than at 18mm. The on-chip filter should not. So I might need a set of varying strengths, and this is a pain constantly switching filters. Will I need varying strengths? How can I tell what strength at 18mm seems like a different strength at 85mm or at 200mm? 

I dislike filters that have large enough particles that they are visible in the bokeh (for this purpose, at least). I want a very fine-patterened filter.

W ould an ultracon set work? What strengths should I buy? Thank you all for your help. Please don't discuss camera systems except tips for matching between them; there's no ideology here, just what I anticipate will be available and fastest in post. Thanks. Though, to be perfectly honest, I quite like the Alexa's halation filter and would be happy to emulate it.

This thread is great. Would like to see the results. Fwiw, I've seen a lot of successful people cheat in minor ways such as these and have no trouble. It's only when you're hurting someone else or misrepresenting yourself so far that you may not deliver to paying clients in the future that it's an issue.

I'm considering buying a C100 and external recorder so I can work as an owner/operator. I already have the lenses. From what I've seen the Alexa has, legitimately, 14 stops or so of DR. The Epic, when I last used it seemed to clip 2.5 stops sooner and had .5 stops more shadow noise. The 5D with HTP had 1 stop more shadow noise than the Alexa and 3 stops less highlight detail, but was very close to the Epic. The Alexa is amazing! I had great results with the F3 in log mode but my lenses are all EF mount, which leaves me the options of C100, C300, BMCC and Scarlet. I won't tolerate shooting raw so the Scarlet and BMCC are out. The C100 and an external recorder seems to be the best affordable option, as much as I hate external recorders. From what I gather, that will put the C100 on par with its big brother. Then I saw this: Okay, so wow. The F3 looks like it's close to the Alexa. Amazing. The C300 is a half stop worse but its fake log gives it over saturated video highlights (yuck). The Epic looks terrible! Apparently a new firmware update improved it a lot. Was the Epic I used that was like a full three stops clippier than the Alexa the old version or the new one? Most importantly, how does the C100 compare with my current camera (which I don't love), the 5D Mark III? For DR exclusively. Thanks!

A lot of professional DPs and gaffers are super critical of the Sekonics and only use Spectras. Apparently the Spectra's incident meter is far more accurate and far superior and the spot meter on the Sekonic dual meters is sensitive to pollution and is really pretty garbage. I couldn't tell from how many Sekonic dual meters I've seen in use, though. And I just love mine, though it gets no use anymore. A used 558 would be fine and cheaper. Or a mid-grade Spectra. Everyone shoots differently, but for film an incident meter seems about all you need. Since digital clips so badly there's some merit to taking out the spot meter from time to time...plus for hard-to-reach places.

Someone I know who would know claims that a popular light for such car commercials is a twinkie light, basically a twinkie-shaped balloon that hangs above the car. If I understand correctly. Otherwise it's an overhead, which accomplishes the same thing. Cars are reflective so you're lighting with specular highlights. That means you can't have an obvious "source" or it reflects. Based on the last shot in this video they used a smaller source than that huge frame pictured below, and one shaped in a more perfect square. Anyhow, it's all the same idea: light with a big soft light and focusing primarily on specular highlights. Lighting with specular highlights (or intentionally avoiding them, as with Khondji's miniature work on Alien Resurrection) is very cool and requires a real skill and mastery. Lighting dark skin can involve this approach; so can lighting glamor commercials and car ads and hair.

If you have the lenses I'd take the 60D any day. Vastly, vastly better if you can light, compose, and avoid its pratfalls (moire, skew, etc.). Just a whole different league. Then again, you'll suffer from having the same dSLR look as everyone else!

The default shutter speed is 1/48 or 180º. You can change it to anything between 360º and something very small.... You're right that this will give you the best motion rendering. I feel like f2-f4 is the "zone" for a lot of 16mm photography (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't shoot it), and that's shallow focus relative to the hvx200. So I'd keep the iris wide open and use ND filters so you get as shallow focus as possible. Mess with the scene files to extend your latitude. And grading will help a lot, though the hvx has nice colors in the first place. You can shoot some still images on film or shoot color checker charts on film and on digital and match them in post by eye and by looking at the vectorscope. And then add a ton of thick film grain, that might be the real trick, but also hard to do tastefully. Also consider dSLRs. They are very nice. The GH2 is sharp and has a smaller sensor than the others. Should give you a 16mm feel if shot and posted well.

Definitely. A lot of the time it's the director's fault for not making things clear enough in the first place. Art film ambiguity is rarely a great merit. But you should learn to work well with actors (read Judith Weston's directing actors to start), learn how to tell a story well (read Story, Save the Cat, etc.), and learn at least the basics of blocking and coverage (there's a DVD series online, but this is kind of a lost art in all honesty, so just watch tons of movies and study blocking and coverage). A technical background helps, too, especially on lower budgeted productions. You want to know at least enough technically that you can call out your crew if they try to dupe you. Or you need to have enough trust not to worry about it. That said, it will be 1000 times harder if you weren't born filthy rich and connected to the industry and aren't young and attractive and willing to sleep with producers.

How long is the director's cut and how long is the current release? It seems there are 216, 222, 227, and 228 minute versions. I've seen this movie twice in 70mm (likely from the same print) but I forget how long it was. If I saw a truncated print I'd like to see the full version. It looked sharper than modern 35mm to me, fwiw, but it was grainy.

Depends what you want to use them for. The Arri kit is versatile but lacks punch and soft lights. A 1k softbox or something would really make that kit useful. Arri fresnels are excellent lights--very durable, nice aesthetically, etc. You can make a makeshift soft light by bouncing the 650 off a piece of beadboard or using diff frames, but you won't ever get much punch for your key with that kit, especially if you have to light for daylight ever. Divas are nice. I prefer the four banks and two banks for narrative use because the quality of light seems better for some reason and they're big and soft, but they are hard to set up and take down quickly. Divas have the advantage of being daylight/tungsten switchable, inherently soft, and with a lot of punch for a soft light that can run off edison power. But how are you going to add hard light and kickers with just two soft lights? Divas are great for commercial and corporate use and you can key with one fill with the other, but they won't let you shape things very much. That lowel kit has both soft and hard sources so in theory it could be best, but I strongly dislike lowel lights and would recommend against them. I'd look to supplement the Arri kit with a 1k softbox, but only because that's similar to the kit I first bought and like. A lot of big productions use cheaper lights, chinese lanterns with skirts, practicals, etc. now that cameras are so light sensitive and dr has been expanded so much on the low end. With a dSLR that can shoot 2000 ISO you can get by with some very small lights and a lot of bounce. It really depends on what you plan to use. So just go with what you've liked in the past, but don't get the lowel! For corporate the divas will get used a lot, for narrative frensels are nice but that kit alone won't get you as far as would be ideal--not enough punch or soft light.