Phil Connolly

Perhaps but its more tricky on a bigger screen - since the sound will sound like its coming from below the screen. It won't sound as locked to the screen in the way you get with perf screens. I'm sure prices will come down with economies of scale - the market for giant hi-rez LED screens is much much larger then that of cinema projection

Not really, if it can produce comparable picture quality of better why not? Probably impractically expensive right now and audio would need to be resolved - since you couldn't place speakers behind the screen.

The course is very full time 9 till 6. 4 to 5 days a week. I had to work throughout the course to cover my rent. I was able get edit assistant work and QC work at a soho post house and it was flexible enough to work round my course. I was lucky to be staffed edit assisting the final QC and deliverables on Top Gear - so could work on very long Saturday night shift prior to TX. But i was one of the rare exceptions in that the work I did could be evenings and weekends and I was enough in demand to request flexibility on the hours. Most other students didn't get much part time work in - its very full on. I think the most tired I got was floor running on a series of night shoots for game show in the British Museum and going straight to class after - catching 40 mins sleep on the train to Beaconsfield. (fun times) I felt I was missing out by doing 15-20 hours paid work a week since I couldn't do all the extra curricular side projects or go to all the evening screenings. Its the same on the cinematography course - you have a lot of long shoot days and if you ended up shooting a stop motion animation they can be huge time commitments as well.

Yes - I'm working film education which works out well, I discovered that I really enjoy teaching and I can still work on side projects. Yeah the Cinematography course at the NFTS is very difficult to get onto. I believe they have applications in the 100's for 6 -8 places. I failed to get on the course twice and third time lucky got onto the TV directing MA. I'd had so much fun working the previous year with the department I thought I'd give it a go and it was an amazing two years. It is more risky now as their fee's are higher. When I went fees were £5k per year and I got a 50% scholarship and maintenance bursary and I still struggled. It did seem to work out well for the DOP's of my graduating year (2009) most of them are doing big budget drama and proper features. So it can open doors. I think in your case you already have a strong reel and it wouldn't take much to get a bit more narrative work in there. I would also try to see lots of short films, go to film festivals and meet filmmakers that way. Creative England sometimes do networking events, I've found them useful to find collaborators.

Hi Toby Your reel looks good but light on Drama work. If you make a conscious effort to build up the narrative work - I'm sure you can address that. Either by talking to the directors your already working with, perhaps they cross over into drama from time to time. Or look for short film opportunities - your reel is strong enough to be considered. There are plenty of shorts being made in the UK. The trick will be to avoid the bad ones (the vast majority) I wouldn't bother with the camera assistant route - but just get stuck in with making films. First time I encountered a C-stand was on a shoot I was DOPing, I just hired them and experimented. Thats normally how I learnt. I would use each short film as an opportunity to try something out or experiment with a different bit of kit. On thing i did do is volunteer at the NFTS this was lucky that they didn't have enough cinematography students to shoot a bunch of projects for one of the diploma courses. So I got to shoot about 4 shorts in a 3 week period and raid their massive kit store and experiment. They even paid me in the end. Although it was a bit ironic in the year the NFTS rejected me as a cinematography student, I had DOP credits on several student shorts. Really its about making relationships with the right director. The ones that are going to move up and take you with them. The trick is of course picking those directors that will move up. Its also difficult to get paid for things like shorts in UK, its nearly always micro budget and you often just have to battle to get a couple of C-stands and lights that aren't Red Heads. In my own situation I couldn't make it pay consistently enough - drama projects were mostly unpaid and the competition to get even those was fierce and not owning any kit didn't help. So now I don't rely on production for the bulk of my income and if I make things its either music videos or personal projects to stay creative.

I don't think I'd done a production in the last 10 years that hasn't included some sort of post reframe. In my case its usually minor since I do always strive to shoot it on set in the best way possible and plan the compositions carefully. So in my case its less about cheating coverage with a massive punch in. However I've found due to the limitations of time, budget, talent, skill - there are always a few shots that would benefit from work in post to resize. Working quickly on a DLSR with a rubbish viewfinder on run and gun doco, I'm not going to respect the frame if I can make it better in post. 4k helps you do a better job + the ability to oversample why not. I've certainly jumped onto 4k on the shots I know I have to resize - when i want a big close up and I'm sitting on the MOD of a lens thats not long enough - I plan for the crop in post.

Quite, I run the Digital Film BA at Brighton Uni and although our focus is digital, we do hope our students embrace all formats that they feel are appropriate to their work. They can shoot on VHS if thats the right look for a particular project The demand for specific formats hints of a dogmatic process that for me sets the alarm bells ringing.

Various music shows in the UK used to put lee soft 01 or 02 on the back of the lens. http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera-directory/camera-dir-list/category/soft-set You'd cut the filters down to small circle and stick behind the len's - gives a nice subtle diffusion. Yes I know they are supposed to go on the front of the lens - but they can be hacked to go on the back of a 2/3" studio zoom. They are thin enough not to cause problems with back focus etc... Used a lot in studio multi-cam situations where matt boxes and glass filters are less really practical and not an option on the large box zoom lenses. Also experiment with nets - they can go a long way towards giving you the look you need. If I were going to attempt this type of look - I'd probably be looking at getting a 2/3" SD camera, DV or Digit-Beta (for stability), shooting though nets and then bouncing everything to SVHS or Hi-8 afterwards to burn in the analogue look and pick up some dropout.

Yes - its great maybe I'll notice the lighting on the second or third watch but the first pass was full immersion into the dream. Def going to get the wife one of those talking tree blob stick things at Christmas time

Good luck either way. If they want a DVD submission it might be possible to fake a film look with post tools. Then master the DVD at a lower bit rate - it could hide the digital texture and make it difficult for them to spot a digitally shot film. A bit of grain, weave, neg dirt and TK and Kodak named in the credits. They might not spot it. Especially if its a good film and compression artefacts could be your friend here crank it up to hide the fine detail. For instance my reel is a mix of film and digital and on youtube the compression hides the difference enough to sport the difference I got into the NFTS on the third attempt, what helped me was I did a lot of volunteering on NFTS shoots. So by the time I got in I'd got several DOP credits on NFTS films for the TV Diploma course. Ultimately I think I got in because the tutors had met me and seen my work ethic rather then having an amazing reel at the time. Luckily i got a scholarship or I wouldn't have been able to afford it.

I don't think anyone is questioning the value of shooting on film as an exercise to force you to think carefully about each shot when working on a tight ratio. As a tool for admitting potential students to a film course its less useful, since they would have no way of knowing the circumstances of the shoot and have to take it on face value. I've done film shoots with a 20:1 ratio and digital shoots with a 5:1 ratio - people arn't automatically less economical with digital. Its true film shoots typically shoot on lower ratios and require more planning and care then digital. But its not always the case - you could have a rich kid with deep pockets and burning through film stock as much as a digital shoot. Get a good DOP and enough stock and the experience of directing on film and directing on digital is very similar So I don't know if i would automatically assume a filmmaker is "better" because they have shot on film. Actually I think this demand is problematic because film is expensive this could be considered an elitist recruitment strategy; that favours the potential students with deep pockets able to gain film experience and discriminates against the poorer students that may not be able to afford film. Especially on a directing course - you can tell if the potential student is talented from their reel regardless if they have shot film or digital. I've done university film programme admissions and looked at 100's of applications and the good ones stand out. I'd never demand film only, not these days, the risk of missing out on those great students that haven't got "film-film" experience would be too great. If it were me - I'd do something like filming my digital movie off a monitor onto super 8. Technically they couldn't complain or just apply to the NFTS and avoid all this hoop jumping

I think the space is too big to use Atmosphere Areosol's - they only really work in very small spaces, they don't make that much haze and get expensive quick since the fog won't hang for that long Its cheaper and easier to get a proper smoke machine for haze effects. But make sure the venue is ok with it, since it will set off smoke detectors if they have them.

What directing course would ask that you've shot on film before? Seems like a very strange request. Sure the experience of shooting film is different to digital. But it wouldn't help them judge your directing talent. So they would reject an excellent director with a great film shot on digital because they have no film experience? Madness especially considering that analogue film skills are less in demand now and will be even less important when you graduate. Personally I would be wary of a programme that demands this, as it represents an outdated view of the industry. Sure there is the argument about being able to work on a low shooting ratio. The thing is you could have shot film inefficiently with a massing shooting ratio and they would never know from the finished peace. I still think its good for film courses to include a shot on film project - it does help focus the students. I'm the external examiner for the Bournemouth Filmmaking and Cinematography BA and the results of their 16mm project are excellent. The students get a lot out of it, but to be honest most of the students careers will focus on digital - so its nice to do film while at school. But a program that demands it on application...hmmmmm

I still need to read that one. Too many books too little time.

Corporate work is different and often the content is weak - e.g lets do an interview with our sweaty and camera shy CFO about the paper clip sales last quarter. In those cases its worth working very hard on making it look nice to justify your fee - even if only 6 people are going to watch it on the office intranet.

And don't forget there are times where you leave the mistake in the edit even when you fixed it on set. I have had situations where we spot a technical or continuity mistake on set - we shoot another take to fix it but in the edit you end up using the flawed version because the actors performance works better. Good writing and acting will cover many technical mistakes - when I started making films i edited them to maintain the best technical perfection - e.g nothing wrong in shot, perfect continuity etc... spending hours trimming frames of match cuts. Now I focus on the performance more and don't sweat the technical stuff as much (I still want it good) but I'll let something go if the performance is strong enough to distract. Look at something like Lars Von Triers The Kingdom - technically a mess, line jumps all over the place - but still really interesting story that draws you in enough for you to forgive the mistakes. I think its always funny when movie mistake websites think the filmmakers didn't spot the mistakes - they nearly always do but including them is a judgement about making the best of the material at hand in the edit. Certainly on drama shoots you chase perfection - but there is a true saying that "great is the enemy of good". We'd never complete everything if every element had to be perfect. Also there is serendipity in imperfection, energy around working quickly and trying things out. Roughness can help make things feel real and human. I love it that you can hear mistakes and the odd bum note on Beatles records that would now be autotuned to death if produced today.

You can create quite realistic muzzle flash using After Effects plugins or the built in tools. But you still need flashing lights strobes or similar on set to really "sell" it. Since the muzzle flash would be illuminating the set briefly - a give away on bad cgi muzzzle flash is when the lighting on the set doesn't match up with the flash

What Phil R says is correct - you can plug 2 mics into the recorder, record one mic onto the left channel of the stereo wav and the other mic onto the right channel. These can be spit in the edit to create two mono independent tracks. One for each mic - so they can have separate volumes and eq. Some recorders output separate mono wav's (e.g merantz recorders) but a stereo track is a non-issue - the mic signals are still kept separate as long as you record in the correct mode. A dual mono track is better overall as it helps prevent sync issues

With the increasing number of common width cinema screens and the fact that with digital projection, scope film use fewer pixels then flat - you could make the same argument about use of scope in theatrical films. As my local multiplex the screen gets smaller for scope films. If we wanted to maximise screen real estate all films should be 1.9:1 I would argue that since TV screens are much bigger then they used to be, scope images can be effective. Different aspect ratio's are a creative choice just as relevant for TV broadcast as it is for cinema. Personally I'd like to see more 2.39:1 telly programs - go do it Felix

Almost exclusively on Channel 4 - Top Boy was probably the first one, super 16 with 1.3X anamorphics. But channel 4 and Film Four have tended to use letterbox a lot for films anyway - far fewer films were pan and scanned. So that softens the audience to accept letter boxed TV drama programming. If they use it for films with minimal complaints then its fine for commissioned drama. Utopia looked great in scope:

Hey Felix Netflix seems to be cooler with wider AR's as you say quite a lot of 2 :1 but I did spot that "Master of None" is 2.39:1 In the UK of course there's Utopia and Top Boy which I guess you've seen. Phil

I think focusing on an individual cinematographer is wise. But how are you going to separate the effects of different budgets from the other stuff - such as the director, production designer and the filmmakers own developing talent across their career? Budget would be one element of the look, so is changing influences and taste, new technology etc... Once the budget gets above a certain amount it would influence the cinematography less. A $200 million dollar film will spend a big chunk of money on VFX, Stars and marketing. It may be that a $200M has a similar camera department budget of a £30 million dollar film. Even though the overall "budget" is much higher. The proportion of any given budget spent on the camera department will vary from film to film. An investigation into the changing responsibilities of dop at different budget level might be interesting - e.g how they respond to VFX demands, 3D, running a larger camera dept, multiple units. Have you done a lit review yet? I think it might be a tricky area to find much existing research in the topic beyond anecdotal thoughts. Thats the most difficult thing about a dissertation - not just finding a good topic but finding an academically rigorous way researching it.

Sounds like an difficult topic for a dissertation, although its an interesting area for discussion it going to be quite difficult to really come up with a solid conclusion. Great cinematography happens on big budgets and great cinematography happens on low budgets. So if your going down this route you need to find away to focus the discussion. Right now seems very very broad with too many elements that you can't measure - might be tricky to find literature to support an argument. Unless you go along the lines that certain movies at particular budget levels have a particular look. What are you trying to find out in the first instance? Is big budget cinematography better? Well you have to define what you mean by better? And the confusing mix is how much is down to equipment/time vs filmmaker talent. An A grade cinematographer is likely able to make anything look decent - with lots of kit or without. But are A grade cinematographers more likely to be working on what budget? Its an interesting area of discussion but you going to need to find away to focus the question(s) your asking. When you look at these areas its all very subjective. On a dissertation if you've got 9000 words then you need to focus on specifics - so what film genre are you looking at? What time period? And remember comments about producer control and micro management are going to be very difficult to discuss in an academic context. How would you measure and compare that? Beyond general anecdotes how would you measure that? Lots of variables. Its even more tricky now because even low budget films have access to high quality digital equipment so technical quality is less dependant on budget. 20 years ago low budget cinematography would be more visible since filmmakers would be using DV or super 16, short ends, low shooting ratios etc... Now films like "Blue Ruin" transend their budgets due to availability of excellent quality low cost digital equipment I think if I were going to write a dissertation in this area I would consider the digital revolution and how its changed the look of low budget filmmaking. Might be more current and easier to measure.

Yep I think they toured the print after it opened in Bradford. I did hear that it screened a couple of times in Germany prior, in German language and they then over dubbed it in English by re-recording the mag tracks. It was the first time I'd seen a film that used the full 5 sound channels behind the screen - made a difference when your used to 5.1 - like being hit by a wall of sound

I never really liked 2001 on first viewing - but that maybe because I watched in on letterboxed VHS (at least it wasn't pan and scan) on a 19"CRT in glorious mono. It seemed incredibly boring. I was able to see a brand new 70mm print back in 2001 on the Bradford Cinerama Screen. I sat near the front and suddenly it made sense. I don't remember it being mega sharp the grain was visible - but the print and projection were flawless. First time I'd seen 70mm outside of imax. Actually at the time it was the sound that blew me away. I think the print was Mag-SR with 5 screen channels and sounded epic. Especially since at the time my local cinema still had optical sound in most of the screens. 16 years on and I don't think I've had an experience in a cinema that was quite so overwhelming.