M Joel W

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.

I'm looking to shoot some day exteriors and we can't avoid shooting at noon under harsh daylight and mixed conditions (partly cloudy). I'm going to be shooting masters first, then moving on to shots under a 12X12 1/4 grid cloth butterfly. (Unless this won't provide enough diffusion; is 1/2 or 1/4 grid cloth more popular?) We don't the budget or time for HMIs. We're shooting on video so we can't afford the light loss a net results in (the highlights will blow out), so I want to use a lot of bounce. I'd like to use an 8X8 silver lame frame angled up from beneath the talent, but I'm afraid of getting very harsh, directional light. I'd use an 8X8 of grid cloth, but I'm afraid that won't produce enough bounce. What do you recommend? I'm getting beaver board and flex fills for close ups, but for medium shots under the net, is there a particular reflector that's popular? Do you just angle a 6X6 of grid cloth up from the ground (at the edge of the net) to throw light in the talent's faces? I'm lost at this; never done day exteriors like this. Thanks.

Hi, I'm starting soon on a horror show and we want to fog a number of scenes, primarily day and night interiors and, if possible, night exteriors as well. This is mostly to add depth and fill to scenes of high contrast. We are considering either of these two units for purchase: http://www.amazon.com/Chauvet-Hurricane-10...e/dp/B0002HA7LI http://www.audiolines.com/product.php?productid=9101 I want to use a hazer (although I've never used one before) because I don't like the visible wispiness of fog and would prefer an even cover. But it appears that the fogger has four times the output. If we're doing night exteriors in a large, open area, will these units prove insufficient? Would we need to rent a much larger hazer and generator (beyond our budget) to get enough output? Fog seems to get lost easily in convection currents, but we can't wait more than five minutes for the hazer to fill an area (night exteriors) as we move very quickly...am I asking for something I'll never get? In that case, which unit should I settle for? Thanks, -Matt

That's a great idea, but it's not in the budget. I think we're going to go with a 100 lumen maglite and use a "million candlepower" flashlight (600-1000 lumens) offscreen as a followspot and a china lantern on a pole for fill depending on what's needed. It turns out the flashlight we were hoping to get costs over $4,000 and that's way, way more than we want to spend. Thanks for the help, though; I will remember that.

Thanks for the advice. We used a maglite for our last project and found it to be generally much too dark; we used a $10 "million power" rechargeable flashlight (and/or a china lantern on a pole) off camera to supplement its beam when we did exteriors or big interiors. I think the "million power" light was about 500 lumens, so the 200 lumen surefire and maglites may be enough of an upgrade from our basic one... I guess I'll find out by trying one. Anyhow, thanks again.

I'm shooting a project soon and we'll be doing some scenes with almost no light (mostly night interiors after a power failure happens in the script) and we want to light these scenes primarily with flashlights. For close ups we'll add fill to the faces, of course. We are shooting at ISO 250. What would you recommend? I'm considering using xenon lights (though they are expensive...), or multi-led flashlights, although I'm worried the leds are too blue (8000K or whatever). I'm also worried that all flashlights have too narrow a beam; is it possible to buy a powerful light and jb weld a wide lens on it? Thanks for the help, -Matt

I haven't seen a recent movie that makes good use of hard light (or exclusively hard light) in years, although obviously you're right; you can work with it on any stock and theoretically it could look fine. But even look at the grabs of American Psycho someone posted; I can identify maybe one hard source per each relatively high key frame. If you use a single hard source it's generally fine (and hard back/sidelight can almost always look nice) but once you start getting multiple sharp distinct shadows on a white wall, you're in trouble because this looks terrible. Also, while I'm not that experienced I will admit since I can't get a job, I don't see how DV's low contrast could benefit anything in this situation. Sure, if you have no figure movement it's fine, but if you're relying on a high contrast light near the camera, once the actors start moving their stop is all over the place. The only way to fix this? Move the light back a great distance and make it brighter, thereby making it a lower contrast source per the inverse square law and defeating the whole purpose of the thing. Soft light has a gentler fall off and more forgiving shadows so you can string a few together near to each other in the zone where a character might walk to maintain a roughly consistent stop in that area, and it actually falls off more quickly than hard light in most cases so you can do even more with the background.

White walls are a really bad idea for a horror movie. Most horror movies rely on low key lighting and areas of darkness where you can imagine something might hide. Not only are white walls hard to keep dark (white is much brighter than skin tone) but the white wall acts as a bounce board, making a high contrast ratio on the actors' faces very hard to achieve without a lot of flags or negative fill--which usually take a lot of time to set up on a low budget shoot. Paint or wallpaper are generally the best answers. It's pretty important to remember that noir was in black and white and that made for a much less cluttered frame. The classic noirs were also shot by very talented DPs who used hard light well. Unfortunately, hard light does not look great on modern color stocks (unless you're some sort of genius, but even Kaminski blew it on the latest Indiana Jones) and it always looks bad on video--and hard lighting can create distracting shadows, which look particularly bad in color. My personal recommendation would be to keep the actors a distance from the walls, use hard backlighting to create depth, and use a soft 3/4 key near the camera, which can also function as an eye light. Soft light falls off quickly so your actors won't be too dark compared with the walls, assuming the light is tilted down a bit and not directly at the walls and also that your actors are far enough from the walls. I personally like to vary color temperature and maybe have a warmer key than the backlight/background light, which might be a bit bluer. It can also be helpful, for shots in which there is a lot of figure movement, to allow your actors to go into shadow and become silhouettes against the wall, then maybe walk back into light for more emotional scenes when you need to see their faces. Pointing soft boxes down (so as not to get too much bounce off white walls) can be a good idea; I sometimes even tape compact fluorescents to the ceiling and covered them selectively in gaffer's tape to make a toplight or slight backlight when there's no where else to put one. I did this for a very low budget project so I assume you can do better, but it worked sometimes. Using practical sources to your advantage can also help, since many lamps have colored lamp shades that can motivate a soft, warm light that can put some color and contrast in frame. Just darken the front of the bulb with a gel or a spray so it doesn't blow out so badly and this should look good. Throwing a slash of light on the wall or shooting a cookie at it is fine, but it also has to be motivated and not too distracting and, again, you're adding more light to a wall that's already too bright. I always find set dressing to be a better option to add texture and, also, you can manipulate set dressing creatively for close ups to create nicer compositions. Not to say high contrast lighting isn't the right answer; it is, it's just very hard to achieve noir lighting in a white room without totally blowing out the walls, so you may want to experiment with soft light, too. If you're shooting film this will be easier to avoid, at least, but my experience is solely with video.

The ability to take a range of bulbs really isn't a significant advantage. You generally won't change bulbs on set (I've never heard of it) so unless you know ahead of time that you're working with a specific amount of amps availible and have to limit your lights accordingly, you'll probably be using the maximum output lamp at all times. The light looks fine, though. I rarely use fresnels stronger than 650w due to my preference for a soft key (kinos, bounched light, softboxes), but certainly that's a useful fixture. So what you bought isn't so much an interchangable light as it is a 1k fresnel, which is an okay. Scrims, dimmers (at the cost of color temperature getting warmer), ND gels, flood/spot, etc. can all adjust the amount of light, anyway. It's not like a given light has a set output; pretty much, it just has a maximum output relatively to the distance of the camera that can be shaped any number of ways and then reduced as necessary... And an open face light, fresnel, par, softlight, etc. all have different outputs and different shapes even before you take dimmers, scrims, gels, etc. into consideration so a more qualitative and holistic approach toward lighting I think is common these days, particularly with digital, which I assume you're shooting. It's very hard for us to be honest in our advice because you're not being completely forward with respect to your needs. We don't know your budget, we don't even know the nature of the project (interviews, narrative, documentary?) or the medium on which you're shooting it (film and what speed, digital and what camera) and the aesthetic you're trying to achieve. You say you've shot for quite a while and yet you seem not to know too much about the gear you'd have around you at all times. You say you have a producer backing it, but you're buying and not renting gear and are concerned over a few hundred dollars. All I'm saying is, once we know what the project is, what your budget is, what look you want, what camera you're using, etc. we can answer your questions better. But questions like "is this light as good even though it doesn't take interchangable bulbs" and "how is the build quality on the desisti" are really missing the forest for the trees.

Desisti products seem okay. I've heard awful horror stories about their HMIs, but so far as I know their tungsten lights are fine. I think I used a desisti 1k on a shoot once and it was fine (more fragile than the arri but also simpler in construction), but the light I used have been made by strand. I don't remember. I think there's a reason you don't see a lot of them, though, and that's simply because brands like arri, mole, and lowel make sturdier products for similar prices. I just doubt the construction on the desistis is anywhere near as good as the arris. Just looking at their fresnels, you can see that the enclosure is not nearly as nice. Unless the desisti kit is half as much as the arri kit or you never plan on leaving the house with it, I'd skip it. It will almost undoubtedly produce light that's just as good and just as much of it, and it will probably hold up fine for a while, but the arris will hold up REALLY well--rain, dirt, dust, being knocked around, whatever: they arris are built great and that's why 90% of rental houses stock arri lights almost exclusively among their fresnels. I bought a used kit and have had great luck with it. A company I worked for got an awesome deal on some used arris and they worked great, too, and they were much older. If you need to save money, I'd look into used arris but make sure you can inspect the lights or you really trust the seller. Also, the arri light kits are very nice packages. You get just the scrims you need, extremely nice light stands, gel holders, chimera softboxes (they best softboxes there are), and a very nice and solid case. It's a product that's very well thought out. The problem is that people try to save money because, since arris, moles, etc. are the standard, they are also the most expensive and really theirs is the price against which you'd compare something when you want to claim it's a "deal." Of course, taking into account their durability and the cost of repairs, the higher quality lights will be far cheaper in the long run and (more importantly) far more reliable on set than bargain lights, but that doesn't change the fact that you still have to deal with the higher initial sticker price. If you know a reliable place, I'd look into a used arri kit; otherwise, I'd get a new one. There are other good brands, too, and I don't think desisti is the worst, but I wouldn't get it unless it was way, way less expensive than the top of the line brands.

Spend the money on the arris for your basic kit. Arri fresnels are so versatile you'll use them all the time and the build quality on them is the best. I got a kit like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5272...Tungsten_3.html used for $1200 a few years back and have used it on about a dozen shorts, a feature, a few photo shoots, and a lot of other stuff and it's still working very reliably. Of course, I use a lot of other lights in addition depending on what's needed, but the arris seem to get the most use. If you can afford, it I'd recommend a kit with a 1k open face softbox (and the rest fresnels) because your soft key is twice as bright, then, but the kit above is good, too.

I still need help on this if anyone has any ideas?

14 amps at 117 volts. (It says +/-10% so I'm going to go ahead and assume it will work with 110V power). I was going to replace it with the input cable most monitors and computers take, but maybe I should get something a bit uhh...more powerful? I will probably have a shop do it since the capacitors may be charged and I don't know how to discharge them safely.

I took the ballast apart and it seems to be a pretty simple construction. I think I may dremel out the case and replace this part with a 3-pin shroud connector. Good idea? Safe? Anyone who has used quartzcolor or cinemills: is this definitely different from what you've used? I don't want to mess with anything if I don't have to.

Hi, I need to find a mains cable for an old ballast made by an out-of-business company...and don't know where to begin. Does this look familiar to anyone? I've heard it may be the same as quartzcolor and/or cmc/cinemills. Thanks, -Matt