Andrew Alward

Actually, electricians should be doing most of the work, then get PAs where you need them. Also, good electricians should beable to pull cable and rap it at the same time(even with 60, or 100amp cable). Plus, they are only small stinger cables, so they won't be that difficult to deal with if they get jumbled up, so you should be fine getting it done with just 4 people.

The CTB is just for getting the natural blue that tvs emit. the "T" in 500T means "tungsten", meaning that the film is corrected for use with the color of Incandescent light(like your desk lamp), meaning that a white source being illuminated by a tungsten source, is going to be white. Tungsten sources are rated at 3,200 degress kelvin. If your source light is at 3200K color temp, then adding a full CTB, will change your source to 5600K color temp, which looks blue to tungsten rated film. Now, that would probably be ok, but, if you want to be really accurate with your color, then you could add another 1/4 CTB, taking your source to 6200K. Because, the color temp from TVs is rated at about 6500K. The difference between 3200 and 5600 is 2400. Full CTB adds 2400k to 3200k sources. So, adding a 1/4 CTB(1/4 of 2400 is 600) to 5600, gives you 6200k. So, if every other source in your scene is tungsten color temp, then the only blue in the scene will be from the TV. Hope this helps.

Promist filters will do that effect. You can get different intesities of promist, from 1/2 pro, to about 5 pro(which is very strong) For that effect, I might stick to the lower rated filters, anywhere between a 1/2 and a 2.

Hmm, must be a west coast thing. :D Check your gang colors, man! haha! I have heard both, and I coudln't remember which one was the official one. So, thx.

Diffuse your source that makes your TV. TVs emit blue light, at around 6500K. So, if your using a tungsten, use a full CTB(or "Correct to blue") & a half CTB. Then use a dimmer to vary the intensity. Technically, the dimmer will change the color temp when the intensity is lowered, but it shouldn't be too noticable, as long as you don't stick too long on the lower intensities.

My bro and I are creating a production company, and we have arguements over having more opportunities for film-making here in Florida. I say we will have more opportunities in LA. So, my question is, can a DP make a living outside of LA? Or, is LA where it's at? I would love working in an area I'm familiar with. But, I'm also willing to work in LA, because I love making films.

You should beable to use a multimeter to determine the amps comming from the circuit. Then, you must figure how many amps your going to be pulling, as to not overload the circuit.

Just incase you didn't know, Theasc.com has an online photo exhibit of many famous cinematographers. To me, it's not very suprising to find their still images look similar to their motion pictures. Here's a link to te exhibit: http://www.efilm.com/asc_photo_exhibit.html

Get 2 extra electricians (or PAs) way back behind camera, pulling up the slack from the stingers supplying power to the kinos. Then have 2 other PAs rap up the pulled slack in a neat coiled pile, so it's not just junked up. Stingers arn't heavy. :D

Once you start an HMI, you can't turn it off, and then turn it back on, because you won't beable to turn it back on. Even within 20 minutes. It takes a long time for those lights to refresh so you can restrike them. Sometimes you can get a faulty ballast. Does the red "On/Off"(not the breaker) switch on the ballast light up when you have everything hooked up? If it doesn't, then it might mean a bad power connection to your ballast. In my experience so far, I have found those connections to be quite fragile.

Hey David. Thanks for replying. You may have had to answer this several times, so I will keep it short. In the beginning, how did you advertise yourself? Did you get work through contacts from film school? Or, did you use your reel that you acquired through film school? Thanks, Andrew.

I'm a film student. A film equipment supervisor at my school says that, no matter what, If I were to go out to LA to do camera work, that I would be a camera loader for atleast 2 years before I got anything better, regardless of my film school experience. Not that that is bad, but I was wondering if he's accurate? Becuase, he himself has never been out to LA, and has not been in film all that long.

Now, do you mean using zoom lenses to have a zooming shot? I personally don't favor zooming shots. But, I don't see anything wrong with using a zoom lens at a fixed focal length for a shot. I do still photography, and have found using zoom lenses very heplful in framing, especially in a hurry. The only down side that I would see in using zoom lenses, is that they are quite expensive for the fast lenses(which are the ones you want), and cheap zooms sometimes have chromatic abberation.

In my opinion, they are extremely similar, and other ways, they are different. I like to say I'm an ametuer photographer. I have been taking stills for a while now, and I love it. I also love cinematography. I beleive that still photography and cinematography are very similar, but a "Photographer" is not the same as a "Cinematographer." The "principles" of creating an image, I believe, are very similar between the two. However, still photography is more manupulative to achieve a desired look. Technically, you can achieve the same look in a still image, than you can in motion pictures, but is extremely difficult. I believe, that when creating depth and texture in an image, there is no difference between the two. However, one can go into MUCH more detail on the "feel" of an image in cinematography. Becuase, even though you have single frames in cinematography, the feel of the movie is defined over a series of images. More frames equals more detail to a scene, thus defining part of the art of cinematography. Still photography has one frame to describe a story, cinematography uses many frames to tell the story. In that respect, they are different, and equally difficult. Also, just becuase someone has been a still photographer for 20 years, doesn't mean they are a good cinematographer. There are many aspects of cinematography besides lighting, that can make it good or bad, which can't be learned doing still photography. Like being a leader of a crew, and using film-making tools to one's advantage on achieving a look. I think that still photography is very good practice for the cinematographer, both technically and artistically. I think that it teaches good composition, and hones one's skill on gaining a desired "look", which is extremely important. So, I say, a cinematographer that understands the art of still photography, will benefit greatly from it. However, one that doesn't understand the art of still photography, doesn't mean that he or she can't be great at what they do.

I was 2nd AC on a short film shot with the 100A & Mini35 w/Zeiss primes. Our DP seemed happy with the lenses. However, I noticed a slight "blurring" in the corners of the image in some shots. Very strange, becuase I know it wasn't vignetting. Perhaps the Mini35 wasn't configured correctly? Other than that, I think they preformed just fine.