Eric Steelberg ASC

To get an idea, you might want to take a look at a Heineken commercial I did some years ago. The whole thing was an exchange between men at a urinal. You can see it on my website under the commercials section at www.mediumgrey.com It was lit with two kino-flos above with generous black wrap to skirt them off the wall. Fill for the actors was coved bounce card just below frame.

Just found out about his passing. So unfortunate. His work was inspiring and unique. I will truly miss seeing his light. He was my first favorite British DP...and still is one of my all time favorites.

I never went to to film school and have always been a DP. All depends on you...your drive, your skills, and your ability to network.

All I'm saying is that you can make things easier for yourself. If it's not important enough to TRY calling, why are you complaining so much...especially to people who have no control over it? I mentioned calling because you have made it clear that email exchange had NOT worked. Why not call the switchboard if it's such a problem? I'm not being smart, I'm using common sense. Furthermore, I'm shocked at your arrogance and indifference to the ASC after David has explained in great detail to you how the ASC operates. You seem to have so understanding of how a non-profit works. Just because they make money on books doesn't mean they make a profit. That 'profit' is reinvested into sustaining the organization...at the year end they show no profit as an organization.

Nice beautiful texture throughout. Let us know when it's finished. I'd love to see it.

I have a FX client I shoot for regularly with the F900 on greenscreen. To get around the issues David mentions above, we set up the camera and digitize live via HDSDI straight to a PowerMac G5 with an HD capture card at 8 Bit, 4:2:2, uncompressed. The results are terrific and far superior than from what the camera records to tape. It is also imprtant to have the screen underexposed from your shooting stop...with green I go 1 1/3 under, blue I go 1 1/2 under. Make sure the screen is lit as evenly as possible. If there is a little color spill on your talent I wouldn't worry. The green spill will just be replaced with the color of whatever you replace the screen with and look quite natural.

I think I understand what you're trying to say but you should use facts to argue instead of opinion portrayed as facts. First off, film resolution does not decrease with the number of times it's run through a projector. An original camera negative has been proven to have and average of a 4000+ line equivalent which is somewhat decreased during the printing (IP, IN, Answer Print) process. All a projector does is add dirt and scratches. 'True' HD is 1920...just shy of 2k and it is fair to say that a 2k DI of the same footage on HD has an imperceptible difference in resolution when projected at the same size. Film 'guys' don't think film is better because that's what they're used to. They think it's better because it renders most imagery more closely to the way it looks to their eye in terms of color, contrast, and especially lattitude. I honestly don't want this to come across as rude, but that statement clearly shows a lack of experience with BOTH formats. Video is in fact LESS flexible and forgiving than film due to it's narrow exposure range and lack of color information...things which LIMIT you in post with video. There are many different electronic formats to shoot on, yes, but most people who want to shoot a movie with any kind of commercial hope is going to be shooting HD. There is no film cost up front, but by the time you have gone through post and done the things which distributors require for their deliverables (recording back to film for one), the cost spread isn't as great as most people assume. I've been through the process so I can speak from experience. Just because you CAN make a movie on DV doesn't mean you should. There have only been a FEW films on DV that have been even distributed...out of untold thousands. That should say something. People don't want to spend the money to see something they think they could have done themselves. Well it was big enough before digital video to start film festivals like Sundance in '79 and numerous more round the world before ANALOG home video. IFP was also around before so indies must have been a big enough business. Also, digital video films arent' exactly the most popular indies either. They are well written, well shot pictures, most on film. Agree.

If it was such a problem how come you never called the ASC Subscription number?

I've had 2 ads in the cinema and in both cases they were finished in HD to D5, then filmed out. SD to film is RARELY if ever done now with the 'affordability' and widespread use of HD. A documentary feature I recently completed is being put to film from Digibeta as we speak. It looks like ass compared to my HD feature filmout. Aside from the lack of resolution, the frame rate conversion makes movement terribly stoboscopic.

Well explained. Everyone seemed to have problems understanding the anamorphic part. Most festivals that project HD have the same standards as above. SXSW is the same. And for the record, Sundance is loathe to let anyone even speak to the projectionist as they don't want uptight filmmakers bugging them.

You know, I would normally say this represents everything I despise about low budget digital films. I can't stand the use of effects and wacked out color correction to make a film stand out when it should really be about content. BUT I really think you have done something special here. What you created visually really seems to serve the story, though this is only from seeing the trailer. You obviously have a knack for integrating effects in a way that's not gratuitous and actually serves the story. Not to sound cliche, but it reminds me of the way I felt when I first saw the trailer for The Matrix. If I might offer a sugestion...if you plan on extensive greenscreen work, use HD over 16. You'll like the keys more and (with an F900 which I suggest for it's extra resolution) you can digitize at 4:2:2 out of the camera via HDSDI uncompressed for those shots. I do it all the time for a large motion graphics house. I'd be happy to share my experince with you if you're curious. Congrats.

I'll basically reiterate what David said. I like the process of lighting and shooting HD a little more because of the instant feedback, though I don't shoot to get a "final" image on set. I flatten the image out to get a low con image so I have more control in post. That being said, I usually don't do anything more in post than a simple gamma adjustment. It's nice to see the image form on a screen in front of you. The problem of reduced latitude is a pain but if you work within the limitations of the format, you can get exceptional results. I also like not having to worry about whether or not the colorist is going to be faitful to my intentions in regards to film dailies. All of that being said, I much prefer the results I get from film. I think there is something more organic about an image being formed chemically rather than electronically. I also like the texutre grain provides when it's not noticed but rather felt on an subconcious level. There's something about how film renders color subtleties that is incredibly unique and beautiful. That's one of the reasons we filmed out Quinceañera to 35. Digital projection from current HD formats feels so lifeless to me...it feels too sharp. Arguments can be made for HD that its technically better. Some argue that HD has more resolution than film in a practical sense because you're always first generation whereas film prints have gone through IP and IN intermediates resulting in a significant generational loss of sharpness. Film vs Digital can and will be debated forever and arguments by people with far more technical knowledge than me will make valid points. Cinematography isn't alawsy about technical perfection. It's about emotion and translation. Film does a better job of helping me achieve that.

Respectfully... You don't just get a LUT from Kodak. LUTs are all proprietary to the post house you do your film out at. They're set up to the film recorders, projectors, film emulsions, and even take into account the chemistry of different labs. Then you have to make sure the lab hits the LADs. You shouldn't expect to do your own correction and that be it. At the very least you'll have to go into the lab and do some timing to get your print to match what you inended. You don't have the equipment to see on your monitor what it will look like on film. And by the way SR is 4:4:4 and can use RGB color space. Furthermore, I'd be really surprised if you told me you could tell the difference between an SR HD telecine vs 2k files. Transfer it flat and you'll get Cineon type footage. Don't make your project more complicated than it needs to be. Keep in mind if it was as simple as you are assuming it might be, places like EFilm wouldn't exist.

Not to worry John. Even with the success of this movie I still prefer film. Still shoot all my comemrcials on film.

Your best best is to do a one light transfer to SD (dvcam for instance) and edit that. Afterwards, go back with your EDL and do an HD telecine to HDCam SR (4:4:4 10 bit). No point in going to 2k...only about a 100 pixel difference. Doing a full 2k scan seems to be overkill. I wouldn't worry about the color space so much because it'll get converted prior to your filmout in the linear-log conversion. You could just do one flat 'neutral' transfer to SR instead of dailies and have that be it and do your color in the computer or post facility. Just keep in mind the sotrage space and computing power needed to so all this at that resolution. There are many different workflows that can be used. The best thing would be to consult with the post facility who will be doing your filmout.

Nah, not obnoxious. You guys keep the set running. That was a fun shoot. I think I remember it being laid back for you guys as well.

Funny...that's also how I learned to be a D.P.

I would love to go to Berlinale but it was too short notice for me and I'm going to be working. I hear it's a great festival.

Thanks guys. Someone at the festival also mentioned they thought it might be the first HD feature to win. Would be interesting if it was. If it's true I'm sure Sony will be giddy. The directors and I did an on camera testimonial up there for Sony and they were excited BEFORE we won. We decided not to screen digitally. We thought that HD shown digitally looked a LITTLE too artificial and really liked the aesthetic and organic feeling film brought. Furthermore, not having a 35 print would limit our festival screenings as most do not project HD...at best it's usually digibeta. As a matter of fact, the film is off to Berlinale in a couple weeks and they indicated they wouldn't take HD for projection. I'm very happy with the print and spent much time at EFilm and Deluxe getting it just right.

I'm speechless...especially since the compeition was so good this year. Here's the first press release: http://www.indiewire.com/ots/2006/01/park_city_06_qu.html

Well done Mitch.

You can digitize with the SDI output, yes. But you have NO control and I don't think you get timecode either. You need to manually cue the tape. So yes you can but it's not very efficient.

I was surprised too especially since another place said it's about 24 hours per reel. Now that I think about it though, maybe I misunderstood and it was 48 hours for all 5 reels divided between x number of ArriLasers. He also said there is about 20% added time per frame for the anamorphic squeeze. He was very clear about the aging thing. I also asked about them all being bathed together and he said they're running control strips with Deluxe about 10 times a day and as long as the LADs are hit, they can process the reels as they come off...after aging. Would love to hear what John Pytlak says about it all.

Learned something new the other day. I'm just finishing the HD>35mm filmout for my Sundance feature at EFilm and was told somthing interesting I never knew. Each (lab) reel takes about 48 hours to 'shoot' on their ArriLasers. Before they send the negative to be processed, they need to let it sit for about 8 hours to 'age' it. I asked "age it?" He told me that since the first frame and last from on the roll are recorded about 48 hours apart, they need to let the film sit in order for the latter part of the roll catch up in age (chemically) to the first part of the roll. If it was processed immediately, there would be a substantial yet gradual color shift during the roll. Found this very interesting and was wondering how this applies to other situations where time between shooting and processing might become an issue. John? David?

I have a REALLY hard time believing a 4k HD camera is supposed to be "targeted at indie filmmakers." The most expensive film ever made, the new Superman, only used the (currently) 2k Genesis. Indie films are luck to afford an F900 with a zoom lens. I third the Curmudgeonly Statement, but I am interested to see what comes. They are least well funded.