Jump to content

Tim O'Connor

Premium Member
  • Posts

    854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tim O'Connor

  1. Hi Adrian, how are you? I wonder if they are being used to fill in eye sockets and that's why they are that height?
  2. This is a screen grab from ABC morning show camera that was cut to briefly. It looks like there are two ellipsoidal spotlights off to the left, not that high, maybe just about six feet or so, and one in the middle. Does anybody out there see this/do this on tv sets? Edit: Can't seem to post image but shot is in video posted below at 2:40. couple sues over bad video
  3. That's a good meter. I use an older model Spectra but you would do great with this one. I think that most people on here would say that they use the LCD for framing and quick looks but would never trust it too much for judgements about lighting, favoring instead a good production monitor and a waveform monitor. Without those things, most people learn to do their best with their skills and meter and using zebras if the camera LCD has them. With film, I usually work by setting the film ASA. With video I like to work with footcandles, setting a key to a certain amount and working with my meter from that. Some people set a digital "speed" like it's a film speed but I prefer not to do that. LCDs are too limited in too many ways for most people to rely on them for making such critical decisions.
  4. Weren't you a couple years ago on here discussing your hope of doing this film? You did it? Congratulations.
  5. When ABC showed the full program from which that clip was taken, I saw in a fleeting wide shot the position of some of the lights. The interviewer was keyed from the camera side and Charlie's key was on the other side, which helps explain why she is filled in so much more cleanly and he has more contrast in the lighting on his face.
  6. Who knows what were the circumstances of production or how much or little time was available for the crew but this is definitely a situation in which if it were my gig I would more than usual want to avoid making anyone look worse due to technical issues. I don't know to what extent that happened in this case but it seems that he's coming off a bit worse than necessary in how he looks on screen. I heard that his publicist resigned today; it's likely that any friends or representation would advise somebody in this position against doing such an interview, so there may have been nobody there advocating for him. Most lighting people probably dislike when overzealous promotions people offer suggestions about lighting but on the other hand it's understandable that people look out for their clients.
  7. It seems to me that there is a sharp contrast between the look of the two faces in this clip, something that has to do with the way the skin is rendered. The light is more even on her face, and he moves in and out of his a little bit, but beyond that ... is it simply that it is the difference between two faces, or between more and less make-up or is one light harder than the other, one lens a little sharper? interview
  8. If you're doing searches with that spelling, which is phonetically correct, you may be having difficulty finding information. Here is a link to a Wikipedia article Lamé and here is a company that was recommended to me by somebody on here and from which I have bought fabrics for making flags and nets but they sell everything and could probably answer more questions. Rosebrand
  9. I've seen some pretty cool shots with Innovision gear. The DV Probe looks to be a fairly affordable rental for shoots with my HVX-200. I'm wondering if anybody has used this model and what have been your experiences? Innovision DV Probe While on the subject, do people have other ways of getting real, real close to subjects to fill the screen?
  10. I'm on the East Coast too. I sent my Spectra Classic to Spectra in Burbank last year and they turned it around real fast. They also did a Minolta for me too.
  11. Film is balanced one way or the other and if you take your tungsten balanced stock outside, the first step is to throw an on an 85, unless you want to shoot it without correction. If you bring daylight stock inside you correct for that on the camera or the lights. Filters such as 85, 80, ND etc. are basic parts of shooting film and could hardly be considered extra equipment in any sensible approach to production. If that is the program's requirement I would challenge it or look elsewhere. It would be strange to have a production that would include any HMI and rule out a filter as being extra equipment.
  12. David, you keep educating. You are dedicated.
  13. I have edited several segments in FCP 7.02 and exported to QT to burn to DVD. Timelines have credits, multicam edits, intros done with single camera. All have exported okay except one which has missing video from multicam part of timeline. Credits, other footage on timeline appears in Quicktime but audio only, no video for multicam section of timeline. Have used QT, QT Conversion, collapsed/uncollapsed multiclip, all sorts of approaches, video only export (didn't work.) Something with this multiclip I think. I can see it on timeline andf in viewer/browser. Thanks.
  14. I have been editing a bunch of Mini-DV lately and since I upgraded to FCP 7.0.2, I have found that footage shot letterbox (looks fine before capture) appears all stretched out. Capture settings are the same that I've been using and footage is from the same cameras (DVX-100B, HVX-200.) I had to keep manually correcting aspect ratios of footage until I discovered that this footage appears with checkmark next to it in the anamorphic column in the browser. It seems that FCP 7 is interpreting this footage as anamorphic and stretching it, but since it is not anamorphic the stretch is distorting it instead. Now that I know this, it's easy to fix, just uncheck those check marks before doing anything. Still, I've been through the system and settings thoroughly. The only think that has changed is upgrade from FCP 6 to FCP 7, which by the way is still great. This isn't a big deal now; it takes only seconds to correct but before I noticed those checkmarks, it was taking a lot of time to fix. Has anybody else experienced this?
  15. If you believe that " The blog clearly states in its title it is only about the kit ..." as you've posted, above then it seems that you failed to state that clearly enough. If you wanted to blog about your apparent discovery that lighting is not now as mysterious to you as it once seemed, you could have done that easily enough. I agree with the poster on your blog who commented that your blog seems "disloyal" to you DP. If this many people are saying that what you have written is offensive, perhaps you could consider editing your blog to more clearly express your insights into using a lighting kit on your own. You don't have to certainly and you may think why should you if you're right and the whole world, or just lots of people, is wrong and doesn't understand you? Your energetic defense of your intentions reminds me somebody who gets arrested for the publicity of a test case. It seems that you didn't have the biggest budget in the world so even if your DP were the highest paid person on your crew, it's common that in such a case the DP makes a deal and doesn't get the ideal rate. Plus your DP volunteered time and materials to help your film. It seems to me that you could be a lot more decent in how your behavior is causing her attention, no matter how you feel your intentions are misunderstood. I say to you, fix your blog.
  16. Aw, come on. Are we going to see more women in executive positions now strictly because they have these new lighter briefcases? It was a lot of factors but not camera weight, at least not for people who were up for DP positions but weren't going to do all the handheld Mitchell work :)
  17. How do people feel about the limitations of language if it is desired to give a neutral-gender description of a job when it seems that the best choice is along the lines of "cameraman" or "policeman" or "alderman"? I know women who have all of those jobs who don't care about the -man at the end of the word and some who do care. I know one woman who would rather have the classic term because she feels the -woman calls undue attention to her as the only woman in that particular workplace. Do you feel that this concern is too much or justified? Part of the difficulty is the lack of an easy solution. "Carpenter" works in its present form. For "cameraman" there are alternatives but none that seems to have the exact same meaning. "Police officer" is clunkier than "policeman" but "cop" isn't always appropriate as a substitute. Maybe the same with "bobby" too? "i've heard "lighting camera" as shorthand for "lighting cameraman" but I think that just "camera" for a cameraman/woman would be confusing, such as "Quick, get the camera!" "Who? Which? Francis or Arri?"
  18. Alistair, you posted above while I was putting this together. No need to go off on somebody who asked a concise question. Sometimes a challenge to one's proposition is meant to be the best advice. I think that you both have valid views, albeit probably overly optimistic and pessimistic respectively. People attempted to caution me against ambitious projects. I think that I would have benefitted from listening a bit more. I suggest that you make a plan to shoot something specific if you take this trip. Be open to spontaneous adventures of course but look at what you can plan to shoot in NYC . If you like narrative, recruit some NYC actors online. Somebody might say how good could a Mini-DV handheld short film be made by people walking around and shooting sub-guerilla style? Hey, maybe really good, right? If you like documentary see what's going on during the time of your trip, such as a big festival or event that you could jump right into as a person walking around with a camera. Any of these things might lead you to an entirely new plan. Take it from the worldly cynics though spend your time and money carefully. Still explore but focus intently.
  19. The Last Tycoon by F. Scott Fitzgerald. He also wrote many short stories about a Hollywood screenwriter that you can find collected as "The Pat Hobby Stories".
  20. I'm reading this with interest because in the past week I changed my description to "other". I wanted to put "cinematographer" but that option isn't available. Yes, there have been many call sheets on which I'm listed as Director of Photography. I have thought for a long time however that, as much as I like that title, it has the potential to take away somewhat from the credit due to the director. If you consider that a spectrum of directors has some who are extremely skilled in motion picture photography at one end and at the other end those who have never used a camera, with a mixture in between, then there will be times when the DP is indeed the director of photography and other times when that term is simply inaccurate. Most DPs probably know more about motion picture photography than do the directors for whom they work. Sometimes you'll work for a director who is a former DP, perhaps one who even has more experience. What is meant however by the word "director" in this title? Is it consistent from film to film? I have read many descriptions of the DP job that describe him/her as choosing the composition of shots, what focal lengths are used, lighting, any of the things for which we are typically responsible. Often that is because we are hired because we can offer those choices as options to the film director as a way to best achieve making that film. I think though that there is a trend to portray the DP position as one that has a certain autonomy, as if it has or should have a certain veto power over "dumb" directors who aren't savvy enough to okay a wise DP's recommendations. Sometimes that would be nice wouldn't it? Doesn't everybody have an experience in which everything about a film would have been better if not for the self-sabotaging director? Sometimes a DP will serve the story with beautiful, unobtrusive framing and lighting and camerawork that serves the story best while being far less showy than might have been tempting for the DP, and the director will apply a filter in post or something that, by most people's accounts, does a disservice to the movie? That's the way that the business works but it is frustrating when a DP, working for a hack director, does the right thing and that stuff happens. You hear DPs who wonder if they should have been less ethical and just have shot something that would have been great for the reel although maybe not for that film but might not have been trashed either. There have been some discussions in other threads on here about the rights of DPs. Some people think that a DP should have certain rights to protect the work that was done, the "my name is on it" argument. It is a drag when somebody takes your beautiful work and does awful things to it but the director of photography is not the director of the film (unless of course he or she is doing both jobs.) If the director of photography really were the director of photography, then many production/storytellng choices would be made differently, I like the term cinematographer for me. I am not suggesting that anybody who goes by DP should change that for themselves. It is a generally good description and for many it may be entirely accurate. It is certainly an industry term that most people understand right away and an essential one in the way that work is done now. In addition to that spectrum of directors that I offered, there certainly is a similar spectrum of DPs. There are some who came up through the camera department, some who were grip/electric, some who were still photographers first, some who do great camerawork but are not as adept at lighting. You know how productions will put an experienced DP with a first time director? There certainly are times when an experienced gaffer will be hired to work with a hotshot DP, one who is good in many ways and will do a good job, but is going to need the greater lighting skills of that gaffer to keep from falling short. DP is a term that is employed by a lot of extremely different people. It's kind of like how there are black belts in Karate who have been in martial arts for twenty years and are big, strong and fast and there are ten year old kids who earn a black belt at a school that gives black belts to ten year olds who can satisfy certain exams. I like the term "lighting camera...". It is kind of tough to use until some language solution evolves that works for everybody as far as the "man/woman" part of it. I do know somebody who adopted the lighting cameraman description twenty years ago and has been extremely successful with it but there is a difference between how he employs it here and how I understand it to be used in the UK. Let me ask if you are a DP and sometime direct a film but you aren't shooting it. Maybe you'd like to DP it but it's a big show and to get it done on a certain schedule you have to delegate much of that work. You would likely have strong opinions about how you are going to combine your DP skills into the storytelling tools you use a director. You may be open to suggestions from the DP you've hired, in same way that you like as a DP to be valued for your approach to shooting, Your entire experience is going into how you design and direct this film. Do you think that you, as the person who is directing these aspects of the film, are ultimately the director of photography also or does that describe the person you've hired to lead the camera and lighting departments and to help you implement your cinematic storytelling goals?
  21. Some shows have regular directors who used to DP those same shows, so those guys really know how those shows work. "Law and Order" for example has many episodes directed by Christopher Misiano and Jean deSegonzac. I'll bet that experience must help production efficiency and give them more time to focus on working with actors. Richard, is there anything that you can say about the director you mentioned? Did his short film win a festival(s) or was it seen by just the right person? Was it a 35mm. short made by a crew of industry people or something that was done amazingly well with a Mini-DV camera and some friends helping?
  22. Did you use a DVD of a color movie or black and white? I couldn't read too much into it but I tested it on lots of fluorescents and those which looked best for video also seemed to be the ones that gave the richest prism/rainbow displays. As a general test it seems handy if you have nothing else to go on. Just changed a tire on my car and the tire gauge on the air hose seemed to read high to me so I checked it against my cheapo gauge that I had in the glove compartment. The expensive gauge was about ten pounds high and yes consistently on every tire but ten pounds high when you want to get to 32 psi is a lot. I used my gauge that cost $2.99 to fill my tires and that seemed far more accurate to me. Even a gauge that is off but off consistently isn't necessarily handy all the time. Maybe also we need some kind of MIREDs for tire pressure.
×
×
  • Create New...