Eric Steelberg ASC

I was actually referring to video formats primarily but I worry about the integrity of digital storage mediums as well. You're examples are still relatively young. We can still re-transfer Citizen Kane and Chaplin films because of film's integrity. Let see what happens when somone plugs in a hard drive that's been sitting in storage for 80 years (assuming they can find a compatible plug.) I think archiving is a severely overlooked problem right now.

This is the problem with video dailies. You really never know how good (or bad) of a job you're doing. What I do now is shoot with a digital SLR whith the same exposure I use on camera, then email the photos (with notes) to the colorist after they've had MINOR tweaks in Photoshop. It has weaknesses (shoulder latitude) but in the end gives the best results if I can't have film dailies.

I keep saying the same thing! I'm terrified of what's going to happen 10 years from now when it's hard to find equipment to play back what was shot last year. I hope Kodak continues to find ways to help DP's make the film choice more financially attractive to Producers. I'm looking forward to seeing the tests that Russ Alsobrook just shot with the Panasonic cameras and film.

Go to cameraguild.com, click on news and go through and try to find the articles about film vs digital. These are the people who are intelligently debating the topic.

Respectfully disagree. I think one of the reasons it did well can be contributed to it's look which fit the tone of the film really well. And while some of it was shot available light, quite a bit was lit. I think the fact that it looks as if it's all natural is testament to Acord's high skill. Just my opinion.

A Phil says, digital isn't as good as an investment as film. Film cameras and lenses, though on their way out, held value much better because you could still use a camera that's 90 years old. Unless you work alot I wouldn't invest too much in new video equipment as it will be obsolete in 2 years and most productions and DPs always want the newest thing.

I echo exactly what David and Phil said in the 1st and 2nd replies. The only other thing that is beneficial is that they get your reel to people you wouldn't normally be able to contact because most companies will only accept submissions from agencies when they're requested. I'm with my 3rd agency now and each time I've been referred by someone who knows one of the agents. Even then it took 1 year of phone tag to finally get THE meeting at my current agency, literally. It's ultra competitive to say the least and an agent wants a: someone who's work they think they can sell and b: someone who already has regular people they work with. I'm sure there are others here who can back me up on this.

I shoot alot of national and have done two big international commercials out of London. I'm repped by a very well known agency. None of that really does anything for me. What does get me work is my self promotion. It's socializing with film people without talking about film. It's meeting as many people as possible and staying in touch with them. If you're a gaffer find DP's you have something in common with personally and use that as a reason to talk and get together occasionally. You just have to network like crazy. Work on everything and make some sort of contribution to the project that easily set you apart from everyone else. You will be remembered and you will be called again. Stay in touch with your film school friends. If you want to shoot, shoot everything you possibly can on any format. Anything can be made to look good. And be enthusiastic. It will be contagious and people will want to work with you again. When you show a tape of your stuff, even if it's all DV, make sure you make no excuses about it being DV or Super8 or whatever. You want directors and producers to know you stand by your work and vision.

Unions are a necessity for the business and whether you like it on not, are in it or not, it benefits everyone because it creates a standard of work to be measured by. If there was no union $75/day might sound fine to more people. Productions that are non signatory usually follow at least some union rules..at least in my experience. Otherwise productions are forced to use lesser experienced people who are willing to put up with worse working conditions whose lack of skills and or experience adversely affect production. I disagree that the Union (Local 600 at least) makes it hard for anyone to get in ans causes more of a division. They set the requirements based on an expected skill level which they have dtermined comes from a certain number of days on a certain kind of production. If someone has the skill to keep getting work in the camera dep't. then meeting the requirements shouldn't be a problem. And for the record I'm not in it because I have had no need to be, though I'll probably be forced onto the commercial roster soon. But I strongly believe in it's purpose.

There are too many to list here. There is a Hollywood Creative Directory and the LA411. They'll lsit all of the agencies on both coasts. However since you already have the feature, and unless it's over $2 million, I'd just ask your current agent to do your feature deal. I also find that these days feature agents are taking less clients on a first (?) feature.

If you use it be VERY CAREFUL in your handling, loading, and unloading of the film. Make sure you tape all around the camera. Make sure you talk to people who have experience with it.

I think the built-in spot meter in the Sekonic makes it bulky to hold and everyone I know who has one always has a hard time finding spare batteries on set when it dies. I also don't like if it happens to fall, get banged, or break you're out 2 meters. Having separate meters is an insurance policy. However, their performance and features are very good. I've been using a Minolta IVF and SpotmeterF since '92 and love them. Had to fix a loose connection in the head of the incident a few years back because it was giving me inconsistent readings dpending on which way the head was twist.

I would respectfully disagree about McAlpine's style changing. I've been a fan of his since I saw Predator. His look always changes but that is because he lights appropriately for every film he does. Every film is different so every film should look a bit different. This is what, in my opinion, makes a good DP a great DP. Sure they all have a standard way they work and approach things, but it shouldn't be obvious in the end product. Kaminski, on the other hand, has a more recognizable look between films. That's not to say there's anything wrong with that, but I think, as you said, a cinematographer should grow with every film and never stop learning.

I'm sure there are others, like myself, that have some short films on sites such as AtomFilms.com and iFlm.com. Many probably have their own websites too.

Never heard of the D. Probably another PanaExperiment gone the way of the Primo Classics.

I don't agree with them being as sharp as the S4s or the Ultra Primes...at least MTF. But to the eye yes I would agree, though contrast is closer to Ultra Primes. I used some on some interviews for a documentary. I like the performance but man are they huge and heavy. Like Primo Anamorphics. My problem with them was the amount of breathing they showed to the point where I began to veto certain rack focus moves because I was unhappy with the focal length changing so much. But if you're not doing big racks, they're fine. You're not going to want them anywhere near your steadicam though.

It's a nice stock. Just shot a commercial in Spain with it last month. Since it was only telecined, I only had detail until maybe around 4 stops under reflected. I don't think using FCs will help that much because it doesn't take reflectance into account.

If you want widescreen your only option seems to be to lay down the bars in telecine. What you can do is if when you're transferring and you have cut off something you want to see at the top or bottom with the letterbox, you do have the ability to re-frame the image up and down so that you are no longer cutting anything off. And this can be done on individual shots. It's similar to shooting Super 35. You'll need to tell whoever is doing your transfer what aspect ratio you want it letterboxed for. I wouldn't suggest doing anything more than 1.78 which is HDTV. Normal Super 16 is 1.66 so that would be a little bit more. But unless your there and have a supervised session you run the risk of having things cut off. The lower the aspect ratio the less likely you are to cut anything off. John, I'm not sure what you mean by having to zoom in. I think he just wants to crop. Though I would definitely agree with Super 16 being much better quality.

I did an office comedy last year and ran into the same problem. We ended up, for budget reasons, using the tungsten tubes already in the hallways and offices while letting the windows stay uncorrected. It made for a nice cool backlight in some cases. I would have preferred to go daylight with everything then correct it in camera, but we didn't have time nor then manpower needed to change all the lights throughout the floor of the building.

I was a sophmore in High School when I shot my first peice of b&w 16mm film. The moment I turned on the projector and saw my footage flickering on the screen, I was hooked for life. The questions you ask are good because they are the kind that don't get answered in film school. The great things about the job are collaboration, working with other really creative people, and having the opportunity to really help tell the story and elicit emotion through light and camera composition. Being able to travel and the fact that every day you do something makes this job very addictive. The downsides are LONG days, almost never less than 12 hours, lots of backstabbing due to the insecurities of many people, always having to find a new job, and being away from friends and family for extended periods of time. And because there is so much competition in the field, you can expect to constantly be haggling with producers over your fee which tends to be the highest of all crew. That's all from personal experience and that of other DPs I know. Of course everyone will have different opinions on those so I tried to only mention facts. I've been told I'm a bit of a unique case. I never went to film school and have had, except for film class in high school, no schooling. I didn't start off as an Assistant and work my way up as most, but rather fell into shooting short films for friends since I had a but of a background in still photography. Despite all of that I have been able to have a pretty good career so far. So I might not be the best person to ask about schooling and training. That being said I can tell you that for someone who knows absoulutely nothing about filmmaking already, film school is a good option. If you already know even a tiny bit about it, I would say save your money and put it towards a couple of your own short films and get professionals or film students to help you out. That is in my opinion the best and fastest way to learn. And while you're doing that, try to get jobs on film sets. I know many people who went to film school who tell me they would have learned more by doing what I just said. Personally I watched many many films and read many many books. That was my training. You need to trian your eye. Buy 50 rolls for film for your still camera and try to tell a story by taking pictures and them rearrange their order if you need to (edit them) then see if someone else can guess the story. I think that is an invaluable exercise in cinematography. But to sum it all up I'd say watch movies in all your spare time and really pay attention to the camera framing and the lighting and see if you can figure out why the filmmakers were making those decisions. Buy books on lighting and cinematography and read interviews with DPs talking about their work on certain films. You can learn so much. Oh and by the way I didn't finish college either. I started working in the business and saw no need to continue. I started having to choose between class and a film set. A typical day gets you to set between 7 and 7:30 am, 30 minutes earlier if you want breakfast. If you are starting with a new scene, you will find the director and walk trough the scene on the set with the actors. Once the director is satisfied, actors will go to makeup and wardrobe while the you and your crew light the set/action with other people standing in for the actors. Actors come back, rehearse again for the camera, then hopefully your ready to shoot. This process continues all day except for your 1 hour lunch which comes at 1 or 1:30. It being a 12 hour day you end up leaving to go home at 8 or 8:30. That's it. Night shoots are harder because you have to switch your sleeping schedule and end up going to bed when the sun has just come up. I've also had to be on set to shoot at 4am before. So it varies alot but above is typical. At least there is rarely a lack of good food on set. I hope this all helps you with your career project. Good luck.

Try VER in Glendale. They're great. I rented a 4000 lumen one from them for a music vodeo I did. Prices are good as well.

It has to do with the amount of sampling there is for the chroma and luminance. Higher numbers mean higher sampling 'resolution' which means higher image quality. That's as simple as I can say it.