Stephen Alexander Griebel

I live in VA and there aren't any photo places that carry/rent lights or meters for that matter in this area or Richmond, the most active film city in the state. I was going to get my friend's meter, but he dipped out of town without telling me, and he knew that I was shooting too. I'll start looking up some shops in NC- they're a ton more into film from what I've noticed.

I'm bringing the filters just in case I can find a desolate area of beach to shoot. If I could do that, then I could use the Sunny 16 rule, and I'd need to use the filters to stop down more (since I'm pushing 2 stops, I'd need those filters). The high ASA rating is more a bi-product of compensating for the push process than anything. As far as shooting in the morning, hopefully I won't need to use the filters. It is a dream sequence in a film about a chess player, thus the black and white/high contrast (5222/pushing/red filter for quasi-infrared effect). But, like I said, I don't wanna jeopardize it, I'll be able to get to the beach another time... still, I'd like to get as much shot on my own (CUs of hand-doubles, etc) before I get to the point where I need to feed actors and crew. If you haven't guessed yet, this is a pretty low/no budget flick.

I was going to use either a red or 6x as well (both of which are 3 stops). I forgot to mention that I will be pushing 2 stops, so considering that, I might just wait and shoot it sometime later. For my first short, using miniDV, I had to shoot the sunrise 3 days in a row and remember how fast the exposure changed during that 30 minutes. If I were to use go by digital, wouldn't I need to subtract a stop or two (I thought digital cameras were better in low-light than film)?

So it's my first real day of shooting 35mm tomorrow and for reasons I don't want to rehash, am without a light meter. It's on a beach in North Carolina in the early morning so it won't be too bright and there won't be many people getting in the way. I'm shooting on 5222 (250 ASA) at 24fps (at a fixed 1/48) and the camera is pointed downward at the rolling tide. If it were a bit later, I could use the Sunny 16 rule, I know, but what about a few hours earlier? Any advice on cloudy/clear skies? It doesn't need to be perfect, but I don't want to jeopardize it either. It's a scene that I (the director) can shoot alone, and one of a few that I'm trying to get out of the way without using a crew. Thanks

That's what I was going to do actually. I am of course in search of an expert-- never really planned to gun it alone, but like I said above, I'm going to use a wrecking ball anyway-- fits the particular scene better. Thanks for all the replies, guys!

Thanks guys, I decided to go with a wrecking ball instead.

After searching "dynamite" in these forums and coming up with nothing but Napoleon Dynamite posts (eeghhh) and searching Mandy for a pyro expert in the southeast and getting nothing, I decided to ask it here. I need to blow up a 10'X17' wall out of cinder blocks mortered together. Obviously, for the safety aspect, I want someone knowledgeable with explosives. It also seems like he would be the one to get dynamite/powder/etc-- I can only imagine that post-9/11 it's even more difficult to get your hands on that kind of stuff. All the pyrotecnic guys on mandy seem to specialize in fireworks and list nothing on explosives experts. I do live near Quantico/Mclean and AP Hill, a big military base in Virginia and would try them as a last resort, just wanted to check with yall first. Oh yeh, any idea how much we're talking for all this? Thanks guys

I DPd on my first movie, a short in miniDV. While it looked great, the lights were very theatrical and stylized and, well, not that good I guess. For my next film (a real "film" this time, as I bought a 35mm camera) I really would like to find a cinematographer in the Richmond/DC area who will work for food and a chance to shoot some nice mountain footage in B&W- who wouldn't, right?! I've contacted local colleges, etc and tried to network, but it's tough in a non-LA/NYC area finding people unless you've been in that place for a while. I really need to work more with the actors and sets than on my last picture without having to worry about pulling focus and hotspots. Anyone out there or know of anybody? I'll take anyone who thinks pictures are pretty and cameras are cool. Thanks again guys

Do all you guys refer to filters as people? It's kinda funny to me, but then again, it's early...

Yep. At least that's what I've read-- makes sense anyway. I'd sure love to try it out on some nice silks... Oh well, guess it's Calvin Klein nylons for now.

From a while back, but hey: Just like you said about the light, Mr. Mullen. I'm no DP, but I have done a ton of research on most aspects of diffusion (especially stuff in my budget like pantyhose). You get a much more consistant image with silk diffusers in the back of the lens as they are not effected by light. Alton also explains this in his Painting with Light, even shows you how to make one, albeit a generic version, as he closely guarded his homemade diffusers, no doubt.

I'll be shooting pretty soon with my 2m (15 motor) up in the mountains where it can get pretty chilly. I know spring's coming up, so the snow will probably subside by then but does anybody know what exactly "low temperature" means from the commicam website and konvas manual? Does your camera simply not operate if it's cold or what (how do you know when to use red)? Our ideas of "cold" in the States may be quite different from the Russkies, you know!

Yeh, it kind of deviated-- I even forgot. I just wanted to put it out there somewhere since it is (amazingly) rarely mentioned. Love Conny Hall's work though. What he said about how he got the rain to "drip" off Robert Blake's face in Visions of Light just proves you gotta try everything I guess-- even stuff you couldn't possibly plan.

Certainly well shot and acted. The story is a ripoff (uncredited) of Lone Wolf and Cub, one of the great Samurai flicks. Anyone ever see Three Outlaw Samurai? Lesser known film from the 60s, gorgeos black and white cinematography like so many Japanese films from that time. Why does nobody mention Kubrick films as being the best-shot? Because he didn't have a famous artsy cinematographer? He was the greatest DP ever, with a knowledge that rivaled even camera engineers. C'mon! Compare any of his films to anything else from the same time and it just blows them away. 2001, incredibly shot. Just to pick out one scene in particular, when Dave is killing Hal, with the red light, reflections on his helmet. Clockwork Orange. The use of practical light is amazing. Barry Lyndon, nuff said. He accomplished something that no other cinematographer could have done in the candlelight scene. Not just through his connections, but his vision and refusal to compromise. He could have cheeted with some arcs as has always been done but he didn't. The Shining. Perfection on the zoom, wonderful look to the film. While my least favorite of his, you can't argue with the way it was shot. Oh yeh, 1st movie to use Steadicam. Full Metal Jacket. There's something so true about it, yet no other color film has ever had the same quality. Lastly, Eyes Wide Shut. One of the most gorgeous color films ever. Kubrick recognized that modern film stock is too good. So what does he do? He tweaks it sans computer, in the lab. And I haven't even mentioned his color films like Strangelove, Lolita, the Killing (genius use of bare lighting), and the best for last, Paths of Glory. Forget the dolly shots, the great zooms, even the mindblowing framing that goes on. His choice of lenses is just fantastic, especially in the trial sequence.

Deep down I was hoping that's the response I would get. I do like the organic-- analog, I guess-- look as opposed to the digital one...which is why I'm in this forum I suppose. I did mean to primarily fine-tune in post with contrast and saturation anyway, but was just curious about the differences in in-camera vs. post diffusion.... Well, I guess I'm off to find a Virginia rental house or DP, maybe even a nice bank to rob. By God, I'll get those filters. Much obliged, guys.

OK, I'm organizing gear for my 1st 35mm shoot on 5222 Double-X film. I'm trying to get the scenes lit and shot as quickly as possible and spend as little on filters as I can. My question is, if editing on the computer, are diffusion filters (e.g.) and other aesthetic filters even necessary? Far more control can be gotten with computers than even the greatest of cinematographers can with all the tools in the world. Now, I'm not talking gels or anything to do with lights (which can't be helped later) and I'm certainly not saying filters in general are gonners and just to work on the look in post (this certainly wouldn't be the place to do so!), I'm still an advocate of having a clear mood/look in mind beforehand... but other than 85, 80A filters, NDs and others to get the light balanced and control DOF, which filters are really going to make an imporovement? Everyone keeps saying to use orange filters to make clouds pop, but couldn't you just use editing tools to do the same with greater control (as long as the shot isn't blown out)? When editing digital, you want the most basic and perfectly exposed footage possible so that you can really go for the look preconceived, or maybe you find a new one you hadn't thought about with all the options before you. David Lynch is finding this out. He was film's last big advocate and he said he's never going back after shooting miniDV because of all the options you have. I'm also pushing the film two stops and will be underexposing from one to two stops as I see fit. I know this increases contrast which I could control much better in post, BUT, it gives you a "look" you can't get with any kind of computer touch-ups. What I'm really asking, is what other filters/gauzes are there that do something that you can't get later?

I've become very reliant on "fix it in post" (as have too many nowadays) so I'd like to spend more time and thought (money too), 35mm definitely seems the way to go. It's looking like 5222 stock that I'll have pushed two stops so I can flare the few lights that will be present in frame. Plus, I want to learn heavy contrast produced pre-post. I know it's gonna be ultra-grainy (specially mit 5222, but I'm afraid to push anything less than ASA200, course there's always 500T to convert to B&W in post...) Since I'm intentionally going for forced development, should I rate the 5222 (200 ASA) to 1000 ASA and underexpose the scene two stops from what the light meter tells me (well, the middle of that scale anyway)? I'm about to start Alton's Painting with Light. There are tons of extra books, I know-- any sugg's on some lit that's very technical? I'm trying to be learned in every aspect to get the best results. Thanks guys, you're great!

Thanks Mike! I'm starting to wonder whether it's even worth it to shoot on 16mm though. I can get a konvas 35mm on ebay for like $800 shipped, take it to get checked up, then just use short end 35mm film (.10/foot), no? Looking at the price for telecine Xfer between 16/35, there's very little difference. I know that it takes about 2.5X as much 35mm stock to film the same amount of time in 16mm, but is that the only difference in price? It seems strange that people would spend thousands of dollars to upgrade to super16, which is even more expensive for telecine/development than 35mm and far inferior in quality. I might be in the wrong section now, but it's not definite yet. Any thoughts, guys?

I just finished a short on miniDV and although it was fun, it was too easy(not enough technicality to burn you if you don't get it right). Plus, I had to really operate on the footage in post to make it look more filmesque. Well, I'm converted...while Lynch is sold on DV, I'm plain tired of it. And seeing how cheap 16mm cameras on ebay are, I'm getting real excited about shooting my next film (well, my first "film" i guess). So, it's down to an H16 reflex, pentaflex or BEAULIEU R16 (as long as it's variable speed, I don't care-- i just want it on film). 1) What stock do you recommend? I'm shooting a period B&W anti-war short in the mountains and probably looking at a fast stock for more grain (reversal too?)... I will be shooting both indoors and out (only during the day for outside shots). I'm looking, honestly, for an inferior film. The reason old movies looked so much more appealing isn't just the lighting, it's that stock nowadays looks, well, too good (that dreamy aspect of film is gone). For this reason Kubrick tortured the film stock in Eyes Wide Shut to make it look worse, and made arguably the most beautiful color movie ever (I won't argue if you say Barry Lyndon or even ACO). Anyway, are there any places you can get old film? Any techniques in the lab that couldn't be done in post? It can't be all lighting, guys... 2) Since it's black and white, I shouldn't have to worry about filters, will I? Also, how much good are they now anyway, seeing how easy it is to color correct on the computer? As long as the image isn't too much over/under exposed, should I be fine working with contrast/saturation in post? 3) Being used to DV and hating (HATING) rack focusing and shallow DOF (except certain circumstances), how much more DOF are we talking, even for say, a 10mm lense? I'd like to try and keep deep focus for the most part, so would I have to over-light and bump the aperture up a few stops? How much more sensitive to light is film over DV? I'm gonna read a few books on measuring light so I'll save you guys that discussion. What's a good, cheap light meter (100 bucks max)? Oh yeh, if you get a reflex camera do you really have to hold your eye over the cup to keep light from getting in? Jeez!