Josef Heks

Try riding the dial on a variac

I would agree with freddie, especially considering you'd be rigging over water, with the talent in the water. Dangerous. What you could try depending on your shot, is to shoot a lamp from the floor and bounce into the ceiling (or if the ceiling was not the right colour, use white card, sheet or thin poly attached to the ceiling). Then attach some black cloth, plastic or blackwrap to the roof as a skirt around the bounce area. This will give you a soft, contained top light, with soft falloff. You could then supplement this with wall lamps, practicals etc to make your lighting a bit more source driven. Freddie - I'm an electric from Sydney too.. judging from your IMDB, you look like your new to Australia? You've done some pretty cool projects. Hope the works going well for you here...

Heres a second example, from Apocalypse Now: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/233/anr8.png/ Notice how a whole chunk of detail is missing at the top end of the histogram, even though there seem to be highlights in the frame which look as though they are basically blowing out..

I notice that link doesn't work.. just click it, then take the / of the end in the address bar (after the .png) and the pic comes up. sorry!

I've been trying to use Blu Ray screengrabs of shots I like from movies with the hope to being able roughly decipher the histograms to get an idea of how they have been exposed. But what I'm finding is that nearly every frame I find looks sort of dull - the images themselves look beautiful, but they mostly seem to sit in the lower half of a histogram when I put them into photoshop.. Do you think the images have actually intentionally been exposed like this? I dont find movies at the cinema this dull, but perhaps its due to the bright projection and dark cinema.. Or does a whole lot of brightness detail actually get lost during a DVD/bluray transfer? Heres an example, of the lovely ms zooey: http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/screenshots/%28500%29_days_of_summer_8.png put this into photoshop and you'll see what i mean. Thoughts??

It would if u use a mattebox and 4x4 filters.

Has anyone had any experience with super budget open face eBay lights like these? http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Continuous-Lighting-Redhead-Light-2000w-Film-Camer-/200596897723?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item2eb481bfbb They are about a 1/10th the price of Strands, just wondering how quickly they fall to pieces and the reflectors burn out.. Being openfaced I cant imagine significant colour temp issues with a good bulb, unless they don't run at accurate voltages..? cheers

American Cinematographer sell back issues for $1US, if they have it in stock. You should contact them.

What are the telltale signs here that this is HDR as opposed to just post?

Hi. So I just got my first meter (Sekonic 758cine).. my post has to parts. I'd like to hear how you meter (In what order you meter your lights, where you aim it, flat disc vs hemisphere, incident vs spot etc etc) I also have some questions about how to use it most effectively: I understand that to take an incident reading, from the subject aimed towards lens, gives a reading to expose an 18% grey card to 50% grey. What I dont get is - A. The face is not a gray card, nor is it necessarily angled straight to the camera, so does one have to compensate for this and adjust their metered reading accordingly? B. If a hemisphere incident reading is taken from the face, with more than one light turned on, won't this just average the values, thus causing a flat middleground exposure? C. Why would one take a flat disc reading aimed at a light, as opposed to a hemisphere reading aimed to the lens? thx!

Just saw this film, photographed by Tetsuo Nagata. While I didnt think much of the film, I thought it looked great, quite unlike any feature Iv seen. A very broad question, but how do you think Tetsuo has approached lighting in this film? It has a very distinct visual quality and I wonder if the more experienced of you are able to pick up what techniques and perhaps even tools he has used as a framework for lighting the film in this distinct way. Obviously every shot is different but overall the film is lit (and graded) in a very distinct style, I noticed particularly the way he lights faces. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buarPFzHmBw

I don't want to steer this thread in a different direction, but I just watched that Nike ad and was amazed by the visual quality - it looks almost as though it was CG, the images look like HDR photos. How is this visual quality achieved?! Iv never seen anything quite like it...

thx gareth Ive joined both those forums, cheers mate!

Hi, Im 21 and just moved from Sydney to Melbourne after finishing a degree at film school. Most of the work Ive done at this stage has been my own projects...two examples below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T545UqHcd70 (my first music video, DOP and co-directed, sorry about poor streaming quality) (my uni master project, wrote, diirected, shot etc etc) Anyway, my ultimate goal is to combine resources with a few of my friends and build a small production company from the ground up. But in the mean while, my interest lies in cinematography and I would like to get as much experience as possible around professional DOPs, so I can watch, help and learn. I dont know for sure that I want to become a DOP in the long term, but I am VERY eager to learn and improve my skills at this stage in my life. What I want to know is how do I go about getting such assistant work? Ultimately I would like to get some sort of pay, simply because I am struggling to survive as it is at the moment, let alone having time to work without pay. Where does one go to get paid junior camera work along side experienced DOPs? Is it hard to get? And can anyone suggest particular routes I could take specifically in Melbourne Australia? Thanks very much for any help, much appreciated.. -Josef

ahhh thx yeh iv heard about shutters - What excatly are they and are they expensive? Are they something i could knock together DIY?

Hi, Im going to be shooting a scene which invloves an actor in a green screen studio, who will be composited into a CG environemnt where lightening is flashing in through some windows high above. I am a student so have various Arri kits at my disposal (tho don't think we have HMIs). The studio also has controllable lights installed (kinos I think?). Colour temprataure doesnt bother me too much as the film is graded to an almost Sepia tone. Shooting HD. Im looking for advice on how to make the flicker of the lightening....in fact it doesnt even have to look THAT realistic, it could even look quite expresionistic...I just wanted advice on how to make a lightening flicker that looks decent. many thanks :)

Thanks for your reply John, very helpful and informative, cheers :) Josef BTW, which sort of practical lights do you think would best suit this situation? And what type of bulb would be required to match the fluros? thx

Im about to shoot a short film which is set in an office and we are shooting in an abandoned office space. Currently there are just your typical office fluros on the roof. I just wanted to ask your advice on what sort of setup and lights I should use to acheive that stereotypical office lighting. And do you think I should use the existing lights as well? Most of the shots will be mid-close two shots. Any advice whatsoever is much appreciated! cheers -Josef

Cheers Dominic, that was all very helpful. Im at UTS btw.

Not at all, Id actually be interested to know that myself..

A fantastic post Jon, thanks so much it was very helpful. Is it particularly important having a strong knowledge of all this or is it something a cinemtaographer generally just leaves to the post production facilities?

aahh no see I think Iv mislead you. What im wanting to know is what happens to the actual film stock in terms of processing etc once it has been shot. This is what i THINK happens, but Im sure some of it is wrong/ left out so whatever comments you can make would be great. 1. Film is shot 2. Film is developed/processed (this is the Master?) 3. A copy of the master is made (Negative print???) 4. The Negative print is used to make further lower quality copies which are needed. 5. At some point one of the prints (not sure which) is digitised. To what resolution Im not sure.. 6. This digital footage is editied on NLE and Fx work is done. 7. The timecodes of the edited footage is used to cut the master up to create the final copy. 8. I have no idea how the FX shots fit into the final print?? Printed from digital onto film? Also, if anyone knows any articles about this stuff that would also be appreciated. Many many many thanks :)

No one can help me out with this?? Please tell me if my question is not making sense. And also, I did not expect a detailed explanation or anything, just the basics. Id really appreciate it if someone could help me out or even just point me in the direction of some articles or something. thanks so much

Hi, I'm doing a project for my film uni course, and need to find out about the pipeline of shooting film. Basically I'm just wanting to know what happens to the actual film once it is shot until when it is screened in terms of processing, digitization, intermediates etc...I don't really know the terms very well! So this is the scenario I am particularly interested in: A short film, shot on 35mm, which will have some greenscreen fx shots. Once the film is complete it would need to be made into 35mm prints as well as digital copies. Many thanks to those who can help me out with this! Cheers :)

once again, thankyou very much brian, ur story was very interesting