Chris Walters

Beautiful Work David. I found myself enraptured in the lighting! I really enjoyed and learned from just watching a few episodes. I really love how natural everything looks. So much variation in tone from dark to light. I hope I can achieve such looks like this on my future projects! Great work! Can't wait to see more.

Dont know about avap.org but at http://www.aftrs.edu.au 100% of DPs go onto fulltime work, whether feature work or high end commercials is the only variable. http://www.kokodathemovie.com.au/ from a recent graduate.. and in our class we have someone who hasnt even finished whos done his first feature. Not bad hey!

Thats pretty cool stuff, but i always hesitate to think shooting a feature is really that big of a deal. I mean I can take my dvx and shoot a feature with natural light. A feature is just a length of time and doesn't mean its of real quality and substance. Don't get me wrong it could be a large budget with properly paid crew and thats great, but I my pet pieve is when people mention the word feature and get all worked up about it. But the school looks great though I might want to check it out.

Kevin I agree completely about the grips and gaffers mix up. Its real frustrating coming to a set as the actual gaffer and you got 2-3 other people thinking its their position. It is a big film school problem and people need to be taught all the different positions of a production besides producer DP director writer, and sound.. good luck to everyone. there are plenty of jobs out there for all of us. Not all of us need to be blockbuster DPs. I for one would be very happy as a gaffer or shooting Industrials. Its all about finding a niche and being happy. Good luck....

I'm just about to graduate from Cal State Northridge and I'm trying to determine the best route to become a cinematographer, but also be able to provide for myself on the road to my goals. I have worked on over 60 shorts and features mostly on the lighting side (gaffer, BB Electric, lighting tech), but have recently been getting into camera side. My question is should I intern at panavision and possibly work there, earning steady income but away from sets, but with equipment? Or (and there are several of those) should I use my contacts and just work on sets immediately? Or should I purchase a camera and just start shooting smaller projects and hopefully work my way up the totem pole that way? I know its a complicated question and depends a lot of what I personally choose, however I was wondering if anyone has had a similar decision to make and chose a certain path or if anyone has any say on the matter, all opinions are appreciated. Thank you and good luck to all of you in all your endeavors.

Chris

The nice straight beams are from a 4K Xenon, otherwise it's usually from an HMI PAR.

 

Though the nice straight beam coming through the door when Billy Bob Thornton and Tim Blake Nelson walk into the gym was the real early morning sun -- luck pretty much. We were setting up the first shot and someone opened the door and WHAM! -- this big shaft of rising morning sunlight beamed in right into the gym like a searchlight in "Blade Runner" (or like the sun, if you want to think of it that way). It was higher by the time we were ready to roll, but still looked good.

I guess that would be what conrad hall would call a happy accident. Thank you for sharing and good luck on the next one because I definitely would like to see more.

Chris

Hey great job David. I was fortunate to catch this on a plane to europe. I was looking at your montage and you showcased a lot of shots with nice beams of light coming through doors and windows.. I was wondering what type of unit you chose to get those beams... Xeons, fresnel or pars? I suppose you can do it either way but do you prefer a certain kind to another? Again great work and I look forward to see much more of your work in the future.

Chris

Our guys usually just set up a Panavision chart on a C-stand and line up on it using a zoom lens. Your method is better.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Maybe this is the cheap and dirty way to do it, but when there is down time or a huge lighting set up, I have just locked off the camera and made tape marks on a wall or on foam core/bead board and run off a few frames.. thats how I've see it done and how i've been doing since.

Chris Walters

Hey Chris,

 

I would definitely separate the types of footage into different reels. For your film reel or narrative reel, I'd only include stuff that feels "filmic". This can include stuff shot in any format, and can include stuff from music videos, commercials, etc. - but it should all feel "filmic". I would then cut a reel for your industrials, and then a reel for docs. Hope this helps.

 

Regarding the song, I'd find something that you like, and that you feel personifies or represents you and your work in some way (with or without lyrics).

 

Cheers,

Thanks Marc... I agree with the separation. I was cutting them together recently and it just felt odd to have dolly and crane shots to cut to talking heads. The "filmic" feel should help me decide what stays and goes.

Chris

Hey guys, I'm still in school but I've been doing plenty of decent film and video projects to put together for a reel. I've done weddings, short narratives, documentaries, and industrial pieces. My question is should I compile all of these different genres together on one or make separate reels for each or just the narratives. Also in terms of music, is a song with words to distracting? Are there any styles of music that are better for reels that you could reccomend?

Thank you for your input

Chris

I actually was a 1st AC for a USC graduate project that shot with the red and I'm still riding the fence if I like the camera. It still has a lot of things to work out, but they are mostly convenience problems. I was pulling focus blind which wasn't all that terrible because I have a good judgement on distance but its still a little scary not being able to see if my marks are all correct. I had a lot of fun configuring the body, battery, and hard drive to make it easy on the steady cam op. Another problem is the battery life, its basically a computer it sucks the battery dry and make sure you have two chargers. Even though each charger holds two batteries and we had four fresh ones at the start of the day we ended up on AC power the last hour or so of each day. Which you really need PAs to wrangle the charger and all the other cables coming out of this thing. I also don't like the mini bnc only because they break really easily. The steady cam op rested his rig on his shoulder and the cable got stuck on it and he was barely lifting it up so I could release it and it just snapped. I'm disappointed there is no view finder yet I guess thats in the works. But the images are really nice. Still looks HD crisp to me which I'm not a big fan of, but really easy setting adjustments, playback and very wide latitude make it a nice choice for low budget digital features. Just wait a few more updates and it should be a major player.

Chris Walters

Thanks again David. I'm sorry I missed you when you came to Cal State Northridge. I was in that cinematography class you came with Mr. Dibie. I was on another shoot with Nancy Schrieber. I had a whole lot of questions I guess I'll have to spread out on this server lol :-P It was also a pleasure meeting you at Panafest in the theater for the genesis/film comparison. Hope to meet you again soon.

Thank you sirs. That did clear it up a lot for me. I figured film dailies were more of a luxury so I shouldn't expect them for me anytime soon. :-P Since both of you mentioned it what would be the workflow for a DI. I think I have the basic idea of scanning the negative at a high res or SD to edit depending on budget then EDL to laser it out to film. Is that the just of it?

I've only released to digital and i'm trying to understand the whole workflow. I've been reading on the printer lights and timed dailies and everything done for a workprint. Do you time your workprint/dailies and then telecine that to edit off of or just the original negative. I know that the dailies are positive prints and thought telecine was with the negative. Correct me if i am wrong here. Seems like a waste to do a internegative at this point, but if thats the process so be it.

Do you actually do anything with the dailies or work print it self if you are editing digitally but negative cutting or are they just for checking your previous days work? More of a luxury if you have the funds. Obviously I'm a student and i'm trying to get a handle on this for my senior films coming up. Thank you for any advice that follows.

Chris

Your jokes are not appreciated. :lol: :P

I have not seen this films yet but they are definitely on my netflix list.... I love this guy's hair I don' t know what decade its from, but he sports it nicely.

"I don't think we could have lifted it on a supercrank"

 

Ahh, well thats what the lift gate on the truck is for ;)

 

You and the guys did a great job, there were some massive cable runs, sorry about that!

All in a days work for K. Zanitski lol :P

much thanks david and chris for the insight.

 

yes, the nd filter factor. thanks for saving me from possible over exposure.

 

it is all a bit of new world to me.

my experience so far is using the ND filter on my dvx100

which i understand in a functional way. but the science of it?

 

if i might pose another rookie question (or two)-

 

i'm shooting various lenses on an acl

all with different diameter front glass

so there is no way ($) i'm going to buy filters for each lens.

 

at this point i'm also working without a matte box/ filter frame.

but

the acl does have this gel filter slot, which while maybe not being as precise/desirable

as putting glass on the end of the lens it is what i'm hoping to make do with for now

as i can swap out lenses and keep the same piece of gel set.

 

as far as gel nd filters (wratten?) which would you suggest having?

if i wanted to budget for only two. a .3 and a.6 as d. underdahl recommends in his book?

he writes that a .3 cuts 1 stop. and a .6 cuts 2 stops and that you can layer them together to cut 3stops.

 

what all this filter talk makes me realize (did you just hear the gulp as i swallowed my pride?)

is just how unclear i am about the notion of what actually comprises a whole "stop".

(laughter, do i hear laughter?)

 

it seems like going from f32 to f16 is a jump of two stops.

why?

 

i understand the basics of how to use a light meter.

film speed in relation to aperture, shutter angle and such.

but if i were to try to tell you how many stops are between f 5.6 and f 11 i'd be at a loss.

is there a simple description/formula that will clarify this concept for me so that when i am using an ND filter i get the correct exposure?

 

slowly slowly

piece by piece

 

i think i'll go to the woodshed now

and practice some scales.

 

thanks.

In regards to your question about the fstops don't feel bad for not knowing... everyone has to learn at somepoint in their careers and trust me everyone is still learning even Mr. Mullen would gladly admit he is still learning. Thats what makes this craft so great its a never ending search for answers. Mr. Mullen knows a lot more than me and I hope he understands I used him as an example because he is so well versed in cinematography. Back to your question. The Fstop scale can be calculated but you have to know at least two numbers to find out the rest. More or less it just needs to be memorized and you will remember it the more times you go over it.

Here it is

1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45

If you notice every other number doubles from the previous. Thats because twice as much or half as much light is reaching the film or sensor depending which direction you go on the scale. In between these numbers are what are called 1/3 of a stop but you don't really need to memorize those at first. But 1/3 stops are the smallest increments that make a significant difference in exposure that the normal eye can tell. However, there are some DPs who can see down to the tenth of a stop difference and they are truly seasoned in their craft, but it is not necessary at this point. Best thing to do is keep going over these numbers and you'll remember them in no time... or just remember two consecutive numbers and you can double or half them to find the others

Good luck and never stop searching for answers

The speedrings are made to fit specific lights, and the rings are designed to be used with a limited range of units and sizes of Chimeras. In other words, you can't expect to put the largest Chimera on the smallest light and vice versa.

 

If there isn't a speedring already made for the light you want to use, you have to find a ring that might fit well enough onto your light, perhaps with a springclamp to hold it in place.

 

In my experience the crappy bail screws on Arri lights don't hold up well under the weight of chimeras and fail after a short time. Once the screw is stripped that's it, you can't tighten it into place anymore.

Chimera actually makes an adjustable speed ring although I couldn't tell you the exact sizes. They're a little bit of a hassle to get the right size for the light unless you know the measurements but once you figure it out its pretty nice... I agree about the arri lights they can't handle that much weight on front which is really annoying not to mention they get way to hot for their size.....

This question is for anyone, but i'v noticed a lot of backlights and kickers are slightly cooler than the key and I really like the look of it. It makes sense near a window but I've seen it else where too. Is it really cooler or is it the angle of reflection and the fact its usually a stop hotter. If it is cooler is it as much as 1/4 ctb or 1/8? I know it depends on the movie and style of course. Examples include Courage Under Fire... it looked really good on Washington's dark skin. Die Hard 4- look really hot almost blownout at times. Let me know if anyone has any information on this. It has always intrigued me and I could never tell exactly what it was.

I tend to guess, in terms of how much to underexpose an incident meter reading outdoors to hold more detail in the sky or in sunsets. Usually I guess right, but that's because color neg has a lot of latitude, especially for overexposure.

 

Generally for blue skies and white clouds, I'd underexpose one stop from what I would shoot for a subject on the ground. For a sunset, maybe two or three stops, depending on how bright the sun is, how clear the sky is, and how much of a silhouette effect I want.

 

Obviously a spot meter reading would probably be more precise.

I took some digital stills of the sunset near me and was going for a silhouette, but I read you post and was wondering what you meant by how much of a silhouette effect you wanted. I imagine you mean whether or not you see in detail in the subjects. I'm having trouble putting the underexposure in to numerical figures so if you could correct me It would be much appreciated. Let's say for a normal day scene if my subject on the ground is a 4 the sky should be a 5.6. In regards to sunset i used my spot meter on the sun and set my aperture at that stop and got some good silhouetting. (All foreground was 5-6 stops under) Is that recommended or would you rather have some detail in the shadows.

I have to figure out how to attach the pictures in the message...

I've found that Xenons are just interesting enough to justify all the trouble they bring. From my experience as well as the experience of some people I have talked to the type with ballasts on head are a little less finicky then those with separate ballasts. The particular model in the pictures Kevin posted is the Nexus II, which certainly had its quirks but was manageable. If you need the light to come strait down most places will rent you a special angled mirror that lets you accomplish this.

 

To get an idea of what kind of punch they pack check out some photometrics here. A 2k is about as bright as the sun at full spot from 50 feet away, granted only for a 24" beam diameter.

 

In regards to "Kevin's Package"... There's something either fantastic or absurd in using a light that takes four electricians to get up and and 36,000 watts to keep running as warm fill. If you ever hear "It's subtle but we like it." know that it's gaffer speak for "I'm sorry for making you get this light." ;)

Thank god we put that 36 light on a low boy crank I don't think we could have lifted it on a supercrank. Not without a few more hands and a lot less bulbs. Kevin loves to stuff his package when ever he can. It was a fun shoot but I thought the cable runs would never end!!

That's fine, but I'll bet you'll be surprised at how bad your shots are. I don't mean you specifically, but anyone trying steadicam for the first time will not have good results. Sure, some are better than others at first, but it takes a while just to get used to the physicality of it as well as the different way that the device is operated. I cringe when I see some of the stuff that I shot when I was first starting out, as everyone does.

 

The vast majority of people take a workshop. It's money well spent and can help to keep you from forming bad habits right off the bat. Most people take a workshop before they buy a rig to find out if they're cut out for it and if they like it. It's tough to make such a large investment without even knowing if it's something you're good at. After the workshop, most people spend about a year or two practicing a lot and doing student and short films. It's a good way to learn under the least amount of pressure as well as give you some footage for a reel.

Some people think that they can just buy a rig and be working right away. That's not the case and for most people it takes at least 3 or 4 years before they're getting enough work to make a living.

Hey Brad thank you for all the great adivce.. you really got me interested in the workshops. See if i don't stumble lol. I saw your reel and really liked it. Its operators like you who make a youngster like me think its easy. I will look into the workshops and most likely hire out. Again thank you for the advice. I assume you are in the LA area is it possible you could send me a quote of you're rate with the rig. Thank you

Chris

I could give you names of places you could rent a rig, but it doesn't appear that you know much about steadicam, which is a bit scary with these types of shots. If it was just a walk and talk down the sidewalk I'd throw you some #'s in a heartbeat, but not in this case. You're better off hiring an operator and rig. I'll be happy to help you find someone if you need. Anything high speed with steadicam can be dangerous. If you mis-handle the rig and blow a spring a crew member or horse could get killed or maimed, or at the very least you could do $50,000 or $60,000 worth of damage to the gear, or much more.

There is a reason people train to learn specialties. They may make the shots look easy, but most of the time there is a lot of skill involved that you're not seeing.

For these types of shots I completely agree with you, but for walk and talk stuff I would like to operate it. Where does one get trained in steadycam operating. Is it just something you have to purchase and train your self?

The steady cam is looking like a good idea... but I've been doing searches online and nothing has shown up to where I can rent the A3 rig or any other steadycam body suit.. can anyone recommend a place in LA. Thank you for the advice

Chris

16mm 400' roll is $98 dollars with student discount directly from kodak in hollywood.

Just saw it yesterday -- fantastic widescreen Super-35 cinematography, almost looks like anamorphic. The lighting is wonderful, realistic yet atmospheric. Great use of industrials colors like orange sodium and cyan cool whites, etc. Great night work, especially that long desert sequence that moves into dusk on the river. And the hotel scene lit with just the table lamp, streetlamp, and light under the door, etc.

 

Very crisp. It seems to me that the Zeiss lenses used here are noticably sharper than the Cooke S4's used in "Jesse James", though the period setting makes the Cookes the right choice for that film.

 

The print projection at the AMC Century City was great. Only minor flaw was that the image was slightly high in the gate, so the frameline would be visible at the bottom edge of the screen masking. Wasn't bad enough to get up and tell the projectionist to fix it though. Print looked brand-new, maybe a contact print off of the digital negative (I.N.), very sharp.

Hey david, you mentioned the cooke S4 being right for the period... would it be quite noticeable to use cookes for certain parts of the film and zeiss for the other parts. Would I have to hide this transition some how. I'm prepping a short that will transition from unsaturated to saturated and was just going to use cookes, but would it not be fitting to use cookes for desaturated and zeiss for saturated.

It's something that kind of interests me, actually. That along with glassware lighting like you see in liquor and beer commercials, and car lighting. They're all pretty specialized arts.

I can't agree more. I know a few people who specialize in food and car commercials and get paid very well for it. The one thing I've seen the most when just looking at food commercials and videos and back lighting.. not sure why but I always see food back lit. Brings out the texture and shapes throws the shadows towards camera. I've also wondered about shampoo commercials, do they always use strobes in the shower to get the water like it is..

Chris