Tim O'Connor

I think that It was John Sprung on here who had a good suggestion for checking a light's spectrum when you're without a meter. Hold a DVD under a light and it will work like a prism. If you angle it to catch the light and you see the rainbow of light then that is a good indication that you're looking at a full spectrum light. I would like to get a brand new meter though.

That is a good hypothesis. I wonder also if it might be inherently more difficult to make accurate color temperature meters as compared to other meters because of some aspect of measuring color temperature. When I've checked readings from my analog Spectra Professional with other people's readings from analog and digital meters on various sets, those meters match up much more than color temperature readings.

That's what mine does too. I sent it and my Spectra to Spectra in Burbank and they did a good job, good price, fast turnaround. I've checked with a lot of other people and it seems that older color meters just don't match up with each other. I've had a couple of seasoned rental shop guys chuckle about about how serious I was on the subject. That still puzzles me a bit but I guess that maybe they figure that if the meter is in the ballpark then consistency from light to light when say checking HMIs is what matters. What if you're just using one or two lights in a shot though?

Have you guys ever compared your readings to another meter? I have a Minolta Color Meter II which I had recalibrated last year. It seems that when I check with people with older meters, most get different readings. I think that when you get to know how a particular meter tends to read, it does turn out that the meter is consistent in its deviation. However, until I get a new meter, I use mine more for reference from light to light than for flat out checking a single light.

I always do over/under and then it comes out straight no matter who uses it and uncoils it next.

I like double fogs especially outdoors for streetlights, porch lights, headlights.

That makes the most sense. How I was leaning anyway, maybe sometimes we ask what we kinda already think but two strong intuitive responses like that from you guys settles it for me. Thanks.

If you had a program that was going to be seen in SD only, say on DVDs, shooting with an HVX-200, would you shoot DVCPRO 50 or DVCPRO HD and downconvert? The former has less resolution but also less compression. The latter has more resolution but more compression. Shooting 720P 24PN would also give more time on P2 cards than shooting DVCPRO 50. I never did a direct comparison before and plan to do so but curious if anybody has formed opinions about this.

Did this this weekend if anybody would like to check it out. Un

I did not attend Emerson College but I used to sneak into its library all the time and read the old issues of "AC". I learned a ton from them. If you decide to donate them someplace I'm sure that would be appreciated by a lot of people who would enjoy them and who aren't able to buy many back issues.

For a "general" discussion thread, general about cinematography, I think that we get to discuss a broad range of items and issues which sometimes may be so tangentially related to cinematography that they probably should be in off-topic. David R., I hope that you return. I want to hear more stories about using arc lights.

There are many good comments, following the article you've linked, which argue that the tax credits bring business in to the state by discounting a certain amount of taxes on money that the state otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity to have taxed at all. Commenters also point out that the article gives the impression that the state is writing checks to producers when actually the state is accepting smaller checks from producers who otherwise wouldn't written any checks at all to the state. It is a valid question whether this is fair or not. Why do it for film productions? Some people contend that tax credits are a way to develop a bigger production base with permanent jobs and that there is a good deal of precedent for tax credits to develop a given industry in Massachusetts with the commonwealth having given many incentives in past years to high-tech companies.

Hey, if you like doing reality/documentary stuff, do you know anybody in Scranton? That's not too far from you. NBC has this documentary show about a bunch of people who work in an office. It's called "In the Office" or something. It's an office in a paper company and even though that sounds like it might be boring, it's actually entertaining although I don't know why the boss Michael Scott hasn't got booted yet. He's pretty crazy. Your film students reality show sounds good. Just please resist the temptation to call it the "Reel" world. Pleaaaaaase.

Massachusetts is moving in that direction right now, although since the incentives started four years ago many crew people have worked more than ever, at least on big Hollywood films. Adrian, maybe you can develop a new sitcom "Everybody Loves Ramen" for when you get out there.

I haven't seen this show but if you ever get to check out "Homicide", an NBC 90s show that is on DVD, you can see a lot of really good handheld 16mm. with a particular style for the show that seems to be kept by the consistency of the operators.

Such a clearly defined goal is a good start. For the sake of discussion, what DPs do you know who do this, not necessarily the megabucks feature cinematographers but ones who make a steady living in the lower-budget world (made for cable, tv movies, maybe some episodic shows) that is still way higher in budgets than the more familiar to many of us low-budget world of 16mm. features and shorts. One of my friends, who has been the most successful financially of anybody with whom I started, does mostly commercials and high end corporate stuff. He gets to do some cool things and with budgets way above the low-budget features never mind shorts that we know so well. He got married and bought a nice house and lives well but he never shoots a straight up movie. He gets asked a lot but he sticks with the jobs that pay the best. Does anybody know is there a level of cinematographers out there, maybe in L.A., who make a decent and reliable if not fat income working steadily on cable movies and tv shows, perhaps turning down higher paying jobs for other gigs to work strictly on films and tv shows? When I say tv shows Adrian I'm thinking of ones that might be more feasible to get, not higher end ones such as say "24" or "Law and Order" whose per episode budget is still way beyond what many of us ever get to do. I had a friend who moved to L.A. after establishing himself out here and for the first year he starved financially but he had saved and gradually he started working, shooting music videos and episodic shows for lower tiered cable networks and then started to get some features. He did well and once he got going he was able to stay with the work that he likes, even though it doesn't always pay as well as our other friend's jobs.

[quote Brian Dzyak The entire "tax incentive" thing is a massive scam/bank robbery. Why do you say this?

Good considerations. I would add that you might find yourself extremely pleased with a camera such as Panasonic's DVX-100B which is a Mini-DV camera that offers a lot of nice features and can be picked up new for about two grand, which would leave you with money for equipment such as a good tripod,lights, microphones, etc.. This is an SD camera but that might might be suitable for your purposes. It certainly is a good camera and does well in low light. Some of the HD/HDV cameras under $5K are tough to use in lower light. I've shot a lot of tv stuff with the DVX-100 series and like it a lot. The DVX-100B does well with 6db of gain.

Hi Adrian, People have made some good points. What do you want? Could you write it out in a sentence? Is moving to L.A. an essential part of that? There are likely some different paths to what you want. If you cut out your present freelancing, people will start calling less but are those jobs getting you closer to where you want to be? Will getting out of your particular spot in that world be more likely to cause you to miss an opportunity to DP a great independent feature just around the corner or to set you up with a new routine to plan thoroughly for one select film this summer? It's great to have a steady cash flow but it seems like you've been doing okay. You're single, unmarried, relatively young. If this position offers you stability to pursue your dreams, then good. If however, you gain a sense of security that dulls the urgency of your dreams then you may lose them. Being able to take classes tuition free sounds terrific. If I gave you free tickets to (name a team in Philadelphia) you might go to those games a lot and see fewer movies and spend less time on developing the skills you need to be the DP you want to be. Free classes could be a mixed blessing. I would love to take more classes in many different subjects and I'm sure that I could con myself into believing that a tangential relationship to cinematography would justify my taking them. Certainly, not every move you make (nor every class you take) should have a requirement of its fitting into your DP career track. Just be careful to see the potential traps with these opportunities. I agree that getting another degree isn't as free as it might seem. If you want one for its own sake, from a love of learning, and you're willing to accept how going after that could affect your momentum as a DP, that's one thing but otherwise why do it? Also, talking to a good financial planner is a good idea no matter what. If you write out exactly what you think you want to do with yourself, and the best way for you to go about that, how would this position fit into that plan?

"Return of the Secaucas Seven" is 16mm, and pretty straight character picture.

I have seen it. It's horrifying. A roomful of people indignant because some actor out with his family for dinner or leaving a doctor's office doesn't want to talk right then and there with one of TMZ's stalkers, who seem to be just kids with consumer camcorders who haunt the stores and airports of L.A. and elsewhere and when they spot a celebrity they hound that person relentlessly, throwing questions and rolling on everything. Do you know how sitcoms are shorter now than years ago because there are more commercials per half hour? If "TMZ" cut from the show that office-clubhouse rehashing of its footage, the program would be about ten minutes. That show must make a lot of money. It looks like it costs nothing to produce and it seems to be widely syndicated. I think those videoarrazi get paid if they snag a piece of video that "TMZ" wants, so the show has all of these camera people out there looking for that big dollar piece of video, for no cost upfront, who are trailing recognizable people on the sidewalk and bothering them.

I have wondered if "TMZ" shoots everything straight in its office and then has a program (is there one?) that is applied to the footage like a filter to scale the footage up and down. Those shots are non-stop snapping in and out. Even for the so called documentary look most camera people give their zooms a rest once in a while.

It's not too wide if you get to see a film in a theater with a really big screen. There are fewer of those theaters now but a widescreen film on a big screen is a great way to see a movie.

If you need to know before you get the product data, you could put a light through it and meter it or use a camera to measure what you have for a stop with and without any diffusion.

Some producers of smaller jobs, particularly corporate, are often like that. In their minds, a softbank can solve everything and no matter how many other ways you might have of getting soft light, they want to make sure that there's a chimera in your kit if they're renting lights from you. After you've worked with them maybe they'll be different but first time they're asking that you have a softbank.