Adrian Sierkowski

Definitely Hal. Hell, it's just in general, "cool," to use a word which reveals my age, that we have professionals here in all calibers to guide all of us through the world of cinematography. It's a jungle, it seems, deepening by the day.

I shake out the bag after every day of shooting and try to keep it assembled in an out of the way place while on set. I check as mentioned in a dark room with a flashlight. never thought of the wear points on the bag though; but with my "folding," it really is more like rolling up (i always roll it in the end as well, i basically just half it over twice and then roll the rest of it like an old camping tent). I keep it's other bag near by, generally closed, but I also will shake that out and give it a good inspection. I try to keep the armlets of the bag on the inside so they're not exposed to dust/dirt as much and of course i keep it zipped up. I may not be doing it by the book, if there is a book, but it's been working for me thusly.

Can't see it without registering/logging in.

My tent came in a nice little baggie of it's own. I just fold it up, pushing out the air, and stick it in, with the bottom of the bag (the thickest part) on the outside, and then put the tent poles in later on (it's a harrison changing tent)

What I think Mr. Mullen is trying to say is that although 500T would be good in a dark deep forest (where you need the faster speed film) it won't work for an all around stock because it is very sensitive to light, so in situations of direct sunlight/harsh sunlight, you'll be overexposing the negative to a high degree, hence necessitating you to carry more than one stock for different situations. 500T is a nice stock, but it's an INT/Night/Low light stock primarily. You might want to look into 250D or 200T for a stock which can work for both INTs and EXTs, though you run the risk of underexposing on the INTs unless you can bring light with.

Kodak has discontinued thier 800T stock. The fastest stock avalible now from Kodak and Fuji is 500T. 7218 can be pushed 1 stop with alright results (rated at 800, though instead of 1000).

OK, the bolex is a fun little camera. It's been awhile since I touched one. But here goes You measure your light form the actor pointed at the lens of the camera if you are using an incident meter (the one with the white half circle.) you'd do the opposite with a reflective meter (without whit circle) pointed at the actor (this would be a spot meter) and adjust it's reading for the skintone (since it makes whatever you point at it mid-grey, you'd open up say 2/3ds of a stop of a caucasion or close down for a dark african Americans etc). You measure from the focal plane to what you want in focus, normally the main actor; but it depends on what you want in focus or out of focus. You do not set DoF, it is a result of your lens choice as well as the F stop you're shooting at and the size of the rcording medium *in this case 16mm film) (for more DOf use a wider lens or m ore light to close down, or move the camera back, focusing out further, for less, reverse that). Moving the camera back and forth will change your shot so you generally don't' want to do that unless you can't get focus for whatever reason (i find focusing easier with the aperture wide open, and then i'll dial it back to whatever F stop it should be). You would generally fine-tune/tweak the lights to get just the right aesthetic, or if a light is in the shot etc, or the staging doesn't work for whatever reason. Generally you'd've lit the set to your desired exposure well before now (for example if you know you want deep DoF on a telephoto lens you'd have to light the set pretty brightly in order to achieve a higher F stop. You'd first do this, consulting tables for the F stop required to get the distance of focus (say from 1 foot to infinity) desired. From there you'd set the your focus then the aperture, and then you'd tweak if say a shadow is too harsh etc. ) hope this somewhat helped! and don't worry, i'm sure allof us have been lost at one time or another.

IIRC you can just import them directly. That's what i did to FCP 5 for my reel then i just exported them at prores hq movs.

There's a thread (c-stand etiquette ) here http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=22353 you should read up on it'll give some good things. Also there are a few books from film tools (http://www.filmtools.com/books.html#top) which give good pointers etc. The best way to learn, however, is through experience and watching other grips work. Normally when you're hired on to grip you'll be under other people who've been doing it a lot longer than you. You'll be the green-grip and they'll take care of you. Just be positive, watch what they do, how they do it, and keep safety ALWAYS in mind.

You know it's times like this where I wished i lived on the west coast. I'd bring my SR3 and Optars out then you'd solve the whole PL mount problem! Best of luck with your shoot, though!

I don't think I've ever seen optars in a B-Mount. I know the ones I have are in PL. I would look up Gregory Mirond. He's the US rep for the Optars (optarillumina.com). Very nice man to talk with, though can be tough with his accent at times (not that mine was a help either!).

That's just what i needed this morning!

I wouldn't really rate people as pro, or anti. People have their opinions, that is all. In truth, I don't really think any of us would pass up on a job opportunity just because our "media holder," happens to be a RED. I know I certainly wouldn't (and I too would I suppose qualify as anti-red). I just don't think people here have, in past, responded well to the notion that Red is the Be-all-end-all. And of course, we are only human, we get into heated debates and never like to be proved wrong, hence the perception of "attitude." But, this begs the question, what would happen if you went into, let's say a beer lovers forum and posted with a brand new brand of beer was going to upset the status quo? Now, red may not have overtly done such a thing, but I can speak from my own readings on here that there is the ambiance of such statements in some of the red literature. Of course, this is normal; and it's just advertising. Sometimes, though, it's taken too seriously. The red is a tool; nothing more.

My recommendation would be lots of soft lighting, primarily overhead, maybe geled slightly blue if you want a colder look, with just a bit filling in the eye sockets and giving some definition. Also, it would be primarily even, though a freezer or the like could have a motivated side-lighting coming in.

I've done it before. It's not easy, but it can be done. did it for 4 days for a promo-video of a magazine. It helped that I owned the S16mm camera, though so I wasn't adjusting much and I loaded as needed. Also, try to get some of your friends to come along and work for free, or even film students just to help move the equipment. I have done this a few times where I've brough friends (a good friend of mine actually) a lot and just said, put x and y from a or b kit over in that corner, and this over there. Then i'd set up the lights, and get the camera up. Soon enough they had watched me and learned what to do, and then changed their major to film! Nothing is impossible. It might be a pain in the ass, but if you're getting paid for it, do it! Just bring a lot of advil and realize that it may just have to be "acceptable."

Amen to that. I had the benefit of going to a pretty production oriented 4 year school (temple univ) which was a good price point at 8000/yr for instate. But it is definitally about working your ass off! And most importantly, try to distinguish yourself. Don't just do what a certain project may require, but go the extra miles to make it amazing. Make it unique. And also; dont get discouraged.

Visual products has a ken hill rig that might also do the job for you. I have one for my SR3 and it works well.

Most film manufacturers list their stocks characteristics and curves that you can read. Kodak also has stills of original negative date which shows you little bits with their approximate exposure values. A good way to learn about film, overall, is to shoot some stills. It's not EXACTLY the same (being a still and not in motion) but it will give you a good idea of what types of tolerances film has (the porta 400, for example from Kodak, reminds me a good deal of expressions 500T) as well as the amount of information recoverable from misexposure (if you have access to a negative scanner, such as one of the Nikons).

Anytime, and Chris makes a nice point about being able to screw up without much worry. It's definitely a benefit! (oh that first roll of plus-x in the bolex still haunts me!)

Hell, i did it with a 650 mixed with 1/2 CTO and some 216 diffusion on a 1K dimmer moving by hand. IT worked well enough for me. Depends a lot on the scene and what else is there for illumination etc. As they say: TEST!

It is useful, but in the end it comes down to your needs, wants, and expectations. Every school is different in their style and facilities. It is also true that some of the best education can be gotten "on the job." Both paths are valid and both have benefits and drawbacks. In the end you have to sit yourself down and think; what do I want, what do I need, and how do I get there. We can only offer out reasons for going to film school. For myself: I worked as a PA/Grip for a long time when I was in Highschool with my Dad who did Lighting/Camera for local TV and DVD things (a lot of areobics videos and cooking shows.) This got me some experience and knowledge on nomenclature, and how things overall work. BUT, I didn't have experience outside of video, and nothing in narrative, save for a few commercials here and there when I basically pre-rigged sets (did a lot of pre-rigging.) The money was good and the satisfaction of seeing something I worked on on TV, and my name in the credits, was also great. Then it came time for college. I knew I wanted to go because I love learning things (all things.) I went to college not to specifically learn film; though I am in film school and doing well, but moreover to take the other classes which I felt would help me in film (art history, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, history. . basically a smattering of the humanities as well as some Physics (optics and motion and matter etc). No, having gone to film school I have been able to network with other people who, through their internships from film school (i did not take an internship as it conflicted with my other BA i'm working towards), I have been able to pick up professional shoots as a DP here and there in the ultra low budget/no budget area. Could I have gotten here by going through the industry? Sure. I probably could've gotten higher by now (i mean I've been doing stuff on sets for some cash since I was 10!). But, and this is a big BUT, I'd probably not have been as confident behind the camera, nor known as much about the rest of the world had I not gone to college. Maybe I'd've been better off. Maybe not. But in the end I feel I made the right choice. I get to shoot (hell I HAVE to shoot) a lot on the school's dime for equipment. I get to shoot outside of school here and there for money. And who knows, the connections I've made here might carry further. I already know one of the professors here wants to use myself and my camera for a film he's working on. and he gives union rates. So, the moral is: there are many paths to the same destination. Take the one which suites you.

IN terms of exposure, I have brought back a 2 stop underexposed shot of an African American, at night, in a dim limo, to the realm of "usable" in an SD telecine off of 7217, so you should be able to get something at the expense of graniness. 3 stops is probably pushing it too far. As for what happened; if it's your fault, accept it. Everyone F**Ks up sooner or later. we are only human, Accept it, apologize for it, and do your best to figure out what went wrong so it doesn't go wrong again. Hell. I just had a shoot where I got a scratch on the neg on some of the most crucial scenes. But I accepted it was my fault, apologized for it, and worked out ways around it and in the end, got a call back to work on another shoot for them. best of luck

Ironically enough this post sent me out on a hunt for one. Ebay has a few "vintage" ones around and some minoltas. Dunno if i'd trust them; though calibration-wise

While I don't want to think of the math, I can tell you that I have always heard that two 1/2s don't make a full in terms of CTO/CTB. Wives tale; maybe, but it's gotten me this far (not that it's a great distance at all but still)

I woudl be careful about mirros as you get a lot of lights in them and might catch the camera. Could be a problem. Try frosting them if you'd like could be for an interesting effect. The other thing I notices about strobes was that when I was shooting strobe lights on cars-- like the kind police cars use-- for a local rap video, that they weren't in sync with the shutter opening all the time; so just make sure your strobes are firing for the camera, so test them out. I think sticking with the darker colors would be good but be careful where you put the strong blues/whites. Might be nise ot hit the bottles with some whitish-blues but keep the dance floor area "warmer" and use all the rig points you can but I don't know how i feel about a smoke machine. The smoke would lower contrast in the frame and take away some of the "darkness/richness" IMHO. That's my 2 cents, but of course each of us would do the place differently and a lot depends on hoe it works in the overall project. Trust yourself, trust your equipment and do it the way you think it looks best