M Joel W

It might be the power. And if you're using thin gauge wires, particularly long ones, you can expect some big drops in color temperature. I've never heard of tungsten bulbs changing color temperature over time, though. I've also noticed tungsten lights seem very warm relative to, say 3200K kinoflos, so it may just be that.

LACC looks pretty great, I can't believe I hadn't heard about it until now. Don't think it will be my MFA destination since they don't seem to offer one and what I'm looking for personally is pretty specific, but the moral of your message resonates. Is it open admission? Can you take classes out of order? I see they have view camera classes (which are hard to find, everyone's going digital) and I eventually want to take some of those, maybe a few years down the line.

Thanks all. Going to get every last one of those books and keep all this in mind as I visit different schools.

Double post! Delete.

There's a fat chunk of irony in your post and it's this: Michael Bay's favorite directors are the Coens. So I'm sure he'd be glad to hear you enjoyed his movies (and you're right to the extent that he's a great director and story issues in both aside, Transformers 2 was brilliant next to GI Joe), but I don't think he'd be glad to hear you trash the Coens. True Grit wasn't their best work, but it was a great piece of filmmaking from our era's best American directors. Michael Bay comes from directing commercials and he's VERY good at a few things. He can deliver fast exposition better than anyone else, sometimes elegantly (though the image), sometimes inelegantly (through wild lines or what have you). He can set up the stakes of a scene very fast and very coherently. He also has an AMAZING eye for action and a great eye period. His style of direction (hyperkinetic frontal primarily objective action/comedy?) is unique and inimitable, however it's been very influential. I think Bay is to some very small extent the Spielberg of our jaded, degenerate generation. I mean that as a huge compliment. Still, you're making a serious mistake thinking you're the only audience member. True Grit did great business and a lot of people, me included, were really entertained by it. It's also a pretty unique film for the Coens (a Spielberg story with a Coens twist) and it was shot quite well. There are metrics, as objective as you're going to get in art analysis, by which Transformers 2 is exceptional. There are others by which True Grit is. Beyond that it's a matter of subjective opinion, or some would argue it's all opinion with occasional big words to dress it up.

I haven't read most of those books. I'll pick them up. Most of the books I've read on cinematography have either been hopelessly basic or hopelessly specific. I get that it's hard to find the happy medium but like "here's a car interior, how do you we light it for these moods;" "here's the corner of a white-walled room with the camera pointing straight at it and nowhere to rig stuff; how do we deal with it;" "here's ext. forest night; how do we light it for these moods;" etc. with simple diagrams would be amazing. I haven't found much like that. ASC articles are wonderful but I can't apply those lessons to such small videos as my own. I have also found books on directing to either be too theoretical or too specific, written as though by movie fans and not working directors. As for schools, well, the application deadline for next fall has passed and I think those are the only two schools I may get into, having sent in applications to a few places. They were also among my top choices going into all this. I don't want to spend as much money as NYU costs. Don't have it. Can't justify it. Not going to spend years building up my reel until I can get in. Here is my directing and lighting work. You can see I still have a ways to go and am all over the place in terms of aptitude, from ghastly beginner at directing to having some skills lighting.

I want to end up in LA. I believe FSU and Austin are the only schools at which I might be admitted. I don't have a strong enough background to get into NYU/USC, etc. and cannot afford that kind of debt, either. What should I do? Both schools claim they move the vast majority of their graduates to LA, so maybe I can still work it out? Also, what textbooks did you read while at NYU/AFI? I've read most of the common ones and found few helpful.

I applied as a DP and will probably end up working as one. But if I'm not mistaken, getting proper coverage and maintaining a consistent eye line are responsibilities of both directors and DPs. Certainly blocking is the director's job but the DP needs to understand what function the blocking serves. It's been tough for me not being able to understand how coverage will edit together, as that informs everything from screen direction to the order in which you shoot. So whether or not I ever work as a director, I certainly want to learn the skills needed for the job. I wouldn't want to direct unless I knew how to DP and vice versa.

I've been lighting for a few years and my progress has slowed to virtually nothing. Same material, same approach, similar results. I also want to learn to block/stage/cover a scene. Am I barking up the wrong tree? I know a job isn't guaranteed, but I think my limited abilities are what's keeping me from finding more work and are certainly what's making my work less fulfilling for me. I get what you're saying about the issue with alums in other cities, though.

Not an option for me personally since I can't afford the better schools in LA, nor could I get into them, chances are. If I do get into Austin and FSU, would you recommend not attending based on location? If neither school will land me a job in film I've still got time to look elsewhere. UCLA is too competitive (and expensive) and I can't think of any other really strong state schools in LA. This may just be my lack of knowledge on the subject. As for AFI, I sent my reel (which is pretty mediocre) to faculty and they said it was worth applying (before I decided I didn't want a 100% cinematography program), so while you do need a reel and some experience form what I understand, I don't think it needs to be amazing.

Definitely true; I'm going for an MFA next fall and, as money is a big concern to me, likely won't be attending an LA program. But the truth is, if you know you want to be a DP and you know you want the best education, AFI is it. Personally, I'm deciding between FSU (if I get in) and UT Austin to learn both cinematography and directing. Very different programs, but both are state schools and more affordable than their glossier brethren. If you're not tied to living in LA and money is an issue for you, both might be worth looking into. I've also heard good things about SCAD and Full Sail, but, not having the money to afford them, didn't even consider them as options.

AFI. Elswit ALSO studied at USC and AFI if I'm not mistaken. For cinematography, AFI is the best school there is. Bar none.

I was accepted for the fall for an MFA and am visiting in a month. I'll let you know my impressions then. I'm not sure what to expect, but I've heard good things about the school and the culture in Austin. Austin requires you do some documentary work and take classes outside your concentration, not sure that's what you want or not. I don't think the program is tops for cinematography specifically (since, well, AFI pretty unequivocally is), but I've got some directing and theory-related tendencies so I don't want a hardcore cinematography conservatory as much as you might and the program seems like a good balance between hands-on stuff and theory, at least for me. AFI is generally for people who've already studied or worked in film for quite some time, too, and want to hone one very specific part of their craft. I don't know your level of experience; if you're already very experienced with film and have the money AFI may be worth checking out. I very highly recommend checking out FSU's film school. They're very intense, relatively affordable, and have no theory or documentary focus. Very genre-centric, relative to other places. They seem to be the fastest track to a comprehensive education in directing or lighting, and they pay for film and have great gear and the faculty seems strong and no-BS. Tons of structure and conservatory style. Honestly it's all what you make of it, so visit and apply all over.

You're falling back on the same pseudo-technical talk, though. Yes, sampling theory says you need n*2 pixels to accurately sample n lines (or n/2 line pairs), but in reality no one is sampling things that perfectly and camera manufacturers, even the most conservative ones, allow for a little moire, because the lens will knock the resolution down to the point where aliasing is not a significant issue more often than not. The system needs to sample at n*2 pixels to get n "mathematically perfect" pixels, but the sensor itself can sample more aggressively and the lens will knock it down to something acceptable. In stills mode, the 7D pushes 3100 lines per image width with aliasing (2500 without) according to published tests using a sharp lens. In theory it should only resolve about 5184 * .7 bayer efficiency /2 (nyquist sampling) or 1800 lines. But in practice it somehow does better, largely because a pixel does not have to be mathematically perfect to be worth anything visually. We don't sample perfectly according to theory in the real world. If we had to, a 2k film scan would resolve 500 line pairs or have tons of visible aliasing. But it resolves more than that with very little aliasing. And then microcontrast enters the picture; the integral of the area under film's mtf curve, the most widely accepted measure of perceived sharpness, is likely no better (and probably worse) than digital's even if the resolution doesn't extend out quite as far. My own tests on still film bear this out. My sharpest 25 megapixel scans of velvia have detail nearly as fine as a 25 megapixel digital camera's in high contrast areas (and no aliasing). But image quality is subjectively comparable to maybe 5 megapixels, at the very best, because the stuff is so grainy and detail gets fuzzy fast. That said, "true 3.2k" out of the red does sound totally impossible. That's substantially better than the 7d in stills mode despite a more aggressive OLPF and a significantly lower resolution chip. But who knows? Sampling theory is just that: theory.

80 line pairs per mm * two lines per line pair * 24.9mm per image width is just under 4000 lines per image width. So just under "true 4k." This is ignoring the fact that 20-30mtf or whatever 80lp/mm equates with is basically mush, and super mushy once you introduce a lens. Granted, according to nyquist theory you'd need 8000 pixels to resolve 4000 lines (2000 line pairs) without aliasing, sure, but no one filters that aggressively because such mushy detail doesn't induce visible aliasing. If this were a real issue, 4k film scans would alias severely and dSLRs would resolve 1/4 their stated resolution; neither is the case. And look at Fuji's 500T mtf charts. They're terrible. Most film isn't that great and it's been "good enough" for years. 80lp/mm does not actually happen on color film, except maybe in a lab. Of course not of this matters at all. If you like the look of one thing, use it. From a technical perspective, I think it's a shame digital manufacturers omit MTF data for their sensors, but what's it matter, really? If it looks good it looks good. If it looks bad, it looks bad. It's subjective, one person will tell you film resolves "8k" another will say far less (and this is a vistavision sized frame vs an APS-C sensor): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml Who cares so long as it looks good? I'd rather seen better skin tones on the red than all the Ks in the world.

Certainly Deakins', Richardson's, and Bay's work on the Alexa will prove very telling. I won't disagree with anything you wrote except to mention that while film's mtf may approach 80lp/mm ("true almost 4k") it slopes off quite a bit and so seems less sharp, whereas digital has superior micro-contrast, providing high mtf to extinction, and much less grain if also a bit less resolution. (Look at these comparisons: http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_resolution.htm ) I remember my comparisons of 135 film scans and digital SLR files were very similar, the film had more resolution (approaching the 80lp/mm my scanner could provide) but it was "structurally" different and did not hold up when enlarged, really. Imo, it really is about aesthetics more than technical merit at this point, which is a big step for digital capture. I think the "red look" is real and has to do with color rendering, not sure how, though. Even my 7d footage does not have that look; the skin tones are better. That said, the Red is a thousand times the camera and the newer footage with it (Pirates in particular) looks superb, technically and aesthetically.

Technically, digital is already significantly better than film. Although I've only used the original red, and I had some issues with it, I have no doubt the new one trumps super35 in terms of resolution, low light sensitivity, perceived sharpness, etc. And the promised HDR mode with the new model will surpass anything for exposure latitude. With still images it's the conventional wisdom that 135 film is similar in image quality to 3MP digital (maybe a little better) and full frame digital is "good enough" to replace 4x5 in most instances, and certainly to replace 6x9. Digital cinema will soon surpass IMAX on technical terms. Technically, digital has arrived; it's the filmmakers' turn to adapt, as still photographers already have. Once the status quo shifts to digital cinema it will shift in a major way and the obsession with "film look" etc. will just disappear. We won't look back, for better or worse. No one would shoot Black Narcissus, Best Years of Our Lives, or Barry Lyndon today; no one will shoot like Shutter Island tomorrow. That said, I think the original Red has poor skin tones and a very distinctive look to it, a kind of plastic magenta/cyan cast, that's certainly unique to the camera. I'm not a huge fan of the look but it's not terrible (especially when mitigated in post) and it seems to be less present in more recent footage. Just by virtue of this look being unique and associated with the lower-budget productions shot on red, it's come to look "cheap." The company is a bit of a victim to its own success. Pirates looks amazing because it's shot great with good production design and also because it has incredibly in-depth color grading. It's hard to know how close you could get to that look without a huge post budget, but even the cheaper current red productions look a lot better to me than they used to. Also, this is heresy since both cameras have poor image quality, but the hvx and 7d both have great color. Ungraded 7d footage, when not plagued by technical issues, looks quite nice and the skin tones are remarkably good.

I'm applying there for next fall as a cinematographer and it's among my top choices, maybe even number one. Apparently the school is a bit more alternative/documentary than say, Florida or USC, but they emphasize hands-on getting to know the gear as well as anywhere else, particularly in the first year. Unfortunately for me, it's also super competitive, but those I know who've attended (as undergrad and graduate) have said very good things. I believe there is some theory there, though, whereas FSU, for instance, teaches virtually none form what I understand.

Does anyone know of any good technical schools in LA for learning how to be a grip--without too much time or expense? I'm applying to film schools for the fall (MFAs), but in the extremely likely event I'm not accepted my back up plan is to work as a grip and learn as much as I can on set to improve my application for future years. If things go well I may continue working as a grip for some years, perhaps make a career of it, and also save up money for school if it proves necessary. Or should I just look for gigs via craigslist and then try to find connections that way? I have a fair amount of on-set experience, but only on student and micro-budget sets. I would like to support myself this way. Thankfully I can maintain an extraordinarily low cost of living, for the most part, but I'd like to be making some money within a few months, if possible. Thanks!

Hi all, I'm a wannabe-DP of sorts and I've decided to move to Los Angeles and start a career as a grip. My goal is to get on to large productions and see how it's done properly, and be a part of how it's done properly. I have two big problems: I've been on a fair number of sets but I'm not yet a great grip (my c-stand technique is wanting, etc.) and I've been told that grips frown on wannabe-cinematographers. It's not as simple as that: I would much rather be a grip on a big production than a DP on something I'm not as proud of, but I have to be honest that my long-term (VERY long-term) career goals lie elsewhere and I would like to light student shorts on the side to practice. I want to make a career of this for at least few years, maybe much longer (though I may go to film school in the interim if I get accepted) and I'm just wondering how to get started as a grip in LA, and how to progress. Is it worth attending a technical school on gripping? I am very serious about moving to LA within a month and making a living as a grip for the foreseeable future. Thanks, -Matt

Due mostly to cost, we chose a chauvet fogger. We can't even afford rosco juice, so I think an appropriate hazer would have been way over budget. Thanks for the advice; I feel more confident we made the right choice now.

Hey Jon, good to hear from you. You're 100% right about the name, of course; I think the last crew I worked with was messing with me...that and I have terrible listening comprehension. We are bringing the hmi along just in case, but we're shooting so fast (8-10 pages a day, I'd guess) that we don't have time to deal with moving an hmi, particularly as this one isn't hot restrike. I'll push to have the hmi available when possible, though, and we'll definitely pick up the silver lame and some extra mulsin to drape over it. Thanks for the advice.

Thanks; I'll make sure to pick some up then.

Low pressure sodium lights emit two visually undifferentiable wavelengths, and are capable of rendering only one color: deep orange. You can't use gels to change their color because they emit only one; you can only add or subtract how much "ugly orange" you have. (Black body sources like incandescent lights and carbon arcs emit a broad spectrum of colors in a curve that is centered around their nominal color temperature; thus tungsten lamps' color temperature can be changed nicely with gels.) Every gel on a low pressure sodium light will work like an ND gel and will not alter color temperature. The same goes for filters, so I wouldn't advise using an 82 filter or whatever; it will just work like an ND filter. White balance is some sort of algorithm magic, so it might do some good, but it might result in something weird. Newer streetlights (high pressure sodium) render color much better, but they are still not great. If you can use an area with these you'll be much better off. I think there's an article in AC where Rodrigo Prieto discusses how he dealt with street lights when shooting 8 Mile, but I haven't read that article, and I'm not sure if he was dealing with low pressure sodium, high pressure sodium, or mercury vapor. For what it's worth, I've noticed that the EX1 is good with discharge lamps, but I doubt anything can make low pressure sodium look good. David's one of the most knowledgeable people on this board and I would take his advice. Find a white balance (maybe around 2700º) that looks okay and use your scene files to decrease saturation if that helps. Post work can change the tint of your footage but it can't introduce colors that were never there. Shoot some test footage to make sure this doesn't look terrible or introduce lots of video noise; the lower your WB the noisier your footage will generally be. If you plan to light your wide shots, use tungsten lights with gels of your choosing to get a similar looking color temperature, or dim your tungsten lights until they look more orange. For close ups, you can flag off the discharge lamps and use softer, prettier colors on your talent. Maybe use 1/2 CTS or something. Just test to make sure everything matches okay and nothing gets too noisy.

Thank you both for the helpful replies. We don't have the budget to rent too much gear, but I'll test the 1/4 grid against the 1/4 stop silk and see which I prefer. I want to err on the side of a bit too much diffusion; that way if the sun falls behind the clouds, we can keep shooting (maybe with a switch to negative fill or something if necessary). The ultra bounce (and similar options) sound ideal. I've never heard of camo nets, but that's a very interesting idea. I don't know if we have trees in the area to motivate it, though. Would I need a frame for bleached mulsin or could I just lie it on the ground around the talent, assuming the sun was high in the sky? Thanks again for all the help.