Jon Rosenbloom

Who here can tell me the history of the Zeiss Superspeed line of lenses for 16 and super16mm? (What year which model came out, etc.) I've rented a friend's set a bunch of times, and they look great, but they're physically so small that I can never get them to work w/ a 2 sided follow focus and a 2 stage matte-box at the same time. (The follow focus knob bumps into the back of the matte-box.) Is there a model that's got the same glass in a bigger barrell? Thanks. J..

What you should do depends largely on what you want to do. That said, if I were to shoot a mini-DV film w/ these constraints, I would go for the monitor, the fill and maybe 2 or 3 inkies. At this level of work, more equipment is just going to mean more equipment for you to move around or sneak into the movie. Just try to work w/ your locations (or impose your will as the DP to get better locations) and have just enough lighting to give the actors a little shape, or illuminate their eyes. The monitor will make life easier for everyone.

You've done a 16 hour day only once on a feature? Sounds like a charmed career! Sad to say, but David's shoot is so typical of a lowish budget shoot ... The last days are always crazy; you often wonder when then call-sheet is going to be published in paperback form! I just worked on day one of one of these films: by the time the last shot rolled around our (Oscar winning) DP said "We're in sprint mode, guys." To me, "sprint mode" means someone's going to whacked in the head w/ a C-Stand.

This begs a question I've been waiting to ask: what's the extent of the DP's responsibility in "producing" the film? It's the DP's job to make it look good, and in order to do that we have to fight for the necessary tools. For instance, if all they're willing to pay for is an old Angenieux zoom, it's part of your job to convice them that that's going to suck, right? But, at what point do you stop fighting and just go w/ what they give you, and let the chips fall where they may? Another example would be getting a schedule that's too short, well there are a million examples ...

Was that a 5 or 6 day week? I'm really amazed you have the energy to write (and write well) about your work. There's a sense in your diary, which I've often felt - during prep for the few short films that I've shot - that on most jobs our main task is just to get the damn thing on film, and if you can fit some artistry into the process, then you're ahead of the game. The situation, the location, the weather, the b.s. all dictate a lot of your decisions. In other words, 95% of our attention is on logistics, and somewhere in all the chatter there's a little notion about how the film should look. Know what I mean? (The other 5% I reserve for craft service.)

Hey, I read your post, and you seem really on top of your game for a student. One thing, how are you going to simulate daylight through windows? Not w/ the redheads, I hope. The blue gell will soak up too much light, and then the gell will melt. Otherwise you seem very well prepared. Good luck!

Thanks David and Dimitrios and Max. It's a student film, 22 pages. Arri includes the 4x5 matte-box in the basic package, but I don't think I can afford two sets of filters! There's going to be some day for dusk shooting, and I think I'll really need the grads for that (actually, I'm toying w/ the idea of nd.3 on the bottom and nd .6 up top, w/ a little sliver of clear space for the actors.). If I want to mix a grad w/ an ultra-con, then obviously the filters have to be the same size. Do you not like the 6x6 because of its heft? David, in your production notes you keep writing about shooting at a 2.8, but you're shooting anamorphic??

What are the different uses of the 6x6 matte box and the 4x5? Is there some difference in the usefulness of grad filters? (I guess w/ a 6x6 grad you can really bring the line way down into the frame.) If I can afford to rent only one 2 stage mattebox, and one set of filters, which size should it be, if my widest lense will be 18mm? Shooting spherical, 1.85:1. So far, I've asked for the 6x6. Thanks, J

You might try PAL TV East in New York.

I'm well behind the technology to post any of my set-ups, so here's a link to a film I shot way back in 2003, the 4th film I've shot. http://www.cinequestonline.org/2005/theate..._view.php?m=571 "Superstore" has played at a few festivals, as well as on WNET's "Reel New York, 2005." We shot it over 4 days (including the big Blackout of '03) on the Panasonic SDX-900. If anyone has a chance to look at the film, I'll be more than happy to discuss the production details. If you watch all the way to the credits, then I won't even be anonymous anymore! Thanks. J.

"On the second day, we went to a small rocky cliff / hillside to shoot a scene where a space capsule crashes halfway down the slope. We had to shoot some background plates for a digital efx crash, but then dragged the crashed capsule up the hillside to shoot it for real on location. It was not an easy or safe location, and to check two camera positions, one on the top of the small cliff looking down and one downhill looking up. I found myself doing a lot of rock climbing, banging up my shin at one point. But someone important on this shoot broke their ankle stepping the wrong way on a rock." I met a 600 member who lives out there named Tom Zane (Zanes??), who has done a lot of shooting/ spelunking/ rock-climbing. He might be of some help if you do more of this kind of stuff. (Weird co-incidence, Brad Heiner replaced me on a job on which I broke my ankle.) "I underexposed the ground about three stops and framed against the sky, although the dailies came back a little too bright, with the exposure looking evenly split between sky & ground rather than the silhouette I wanted." How do you feel about using nd grads, especially for non-static shots?

"The first time"?? How about the 5oth time! I've found the best approach is to go your superior, put your hand on his shoulder and whisper your suggestion. I often start by saying "Am I crazy, but could we just ... " Of course, you get only so many chances to do that in a given day. Also, that's one of things I love about shooting student films. I (usually) don't have to convince people to do things my way.

With respect to the crew: Your second AC needs a good talking-to. His job is to back up the 1st. There are plenty of ways to impart your experience without being insulting, that's one of the marks of a true professional. On a student film I shot, I was lucky enough to get an AC who worked w/ Gordon Willis for ten years, and he never once lorded his experience over me. If he had a suggestion, the tone was always "You might want to try this ..." If your 2nd has really worked on huge shows, he should know that the shoot is not about him. Last week I worked a bit of 2nd unit on a big show. One shot involved some animal talent. 2 cameras were shooting on the floor with the animal. To avoid camera shadows, the cameras didn't have their matteboxes. The DP put a sharp backlight on the animal, which hit both lenses. Early on, I told one of the AC's that there was no way to set a flag to kill the flare, they'd have to put tape hoods on the lenses. Then I watched my coworkers - grips, AC's, operators, even the DP - attempt to set a flag for half an hour, until they decided to just put tape on the lenses. What was I going to say? It was not my place to tell everyone they were wasting their time, so I just kept quiet (and calculated the OT!).

JT, Whatever happenned to Whit Stilman?

What do you do when you interview to shoot scripts like that? Do you still have to say you love the script? What would happen if you said "This is a real stinker, but I need the work"?

You have to have lights that move, or spin. Start with the idea of an inkie that's at the end of a grip arm, on a grip stand. The arm is parallel to the ground, and one of the risers on the stand is loose. Attach a lot of power extensions to the light, and spin the arm around until you run out of cable. Dim the light down, unravel the cable, and start over.

Thanks for the info, John and David. While I've got your ear, John (and anyone else), I should mention the unintended stock comparison I did on my last film shoot. I ordered 7218, and after shooting the first roll I glanced at the camera report and saw the stock listed as 7279. The production had picked up the wrong film! We sent someone out to exchange the stock while we finished the scene on the 79. The rest of the interiors were shot on the newer vision two stock, and I have to say I find the older stock to be crisper, and "bolder," than the vision two film, which strikes me as more lush, finer grained, but a little softer, and less dramatic ... Anyway, apologies for sounding like a wine taster. Any response from Kodak?

I usually give it an extra 1/3rd stop (200asa for 250d) ... that seems to work. "When in doubt as to HOW MUCH to underexpose, be conservative. For example, you may underexpose by a stop with the idea you can darken further in post if that is not enough." Yeah, my last film I did a shot stopped down 2 2/3's; that one is a bit thin.

Hi, I know I should be able to figure this out on my own, and I am going to shoot a test, but: A film I'm prepping has a bunch of dawn and dusk exteriors, and the schedule will dictate that we shoot most of them during the middle of the day. I have a few ideas about how to approach this, but I'm still a little bit fuzzy on the question of printer points, and getting optimal density on the print. If I underexpose in camera by a stop, (or 1.5 stops) and I want the underexposure to make it to the print, what does that do to the printer points and the density of the print? (This would drive the points down, right??) Or, would I do better in terms of grain to shoot my day for dusk shots at a "normal" exposure, and then print down? (This would drive up the printer points, right??) Last, are print stocks so fine grained that I don't need to worry about their density? Thanks for any info, J

Of course, why didn't I think of that?? (I tell you why, I was thinking of taking the whole mini35 setup and one lens on the scout, and that would have been a hard sell.) Well it's nice to have my photographic instincts validated, if not my production instincts. Thanks J...

No money for a comparison, so: Director can use a free dvx-100a, and he wants to add the mini35 adaptor and some 35mm lenses for a more "cinematic" look, or at least shallower depth of field. My gut reaction is to instead rent the sdx-900 w/ one decent zoom (like a canon 8-56mm). The film involves a spacious exterior location, and I find that the 100a, while great for closeups, just doesn't have the resolution to do wide shots convincingly. The sdx-900 won't have the same selective focus plane as the mini35, but it's still significantly shallower than the 100a on its own. Besides, wide exterior shots are going to be deep focus no matter what camera we use. Is it so much cheaper to rent the mini-35 plus lenses, than just getting the sdx?? Doesn't using the mini35 adaptor involve something like a generational loss in the quality of the image?

If the film you did goes anywhere, and gets recognition, then that will be great for your career, whether or not you keep working w/ your director friend. I wouldn't worry about "what if he gets the big jobs ..." Either he'll take you w/ him, or you benefit from having done his breakthrough film. You know the law of this land is that you can not be discriminated against on the job based on your union affiliation. That's the law, the practice is somewhat more complex! But, if a director really stands behind you and insists on you for a big, union, feature, you work your 30 days and then 600 can't legally refuse your 10 grand initiation. More importantly, where did you get your s16 package, and is your crew list on imdb? Fellow NYer, J...

On "Vanilla Sky's" night exteriors the tungsten lights had half-blue, and the hmi's had half-orange. Wasn't adding eigth green to the ctb in fashion a few years ago?

Does that book cover car rigs, and hostess trays and hood mounts? It doesn't matter how slowly you're moving, you'll be into some kind of tow or car rig. Towing a car is a BIG DEAL; if you're crew is small and inexperienced, and the budget is too small to get more, and more experienced people, I would strongly recommend against doing a tow rig. Hood mounts are pretty cheap to rent, and you need only one skilled grip to work it safely, same can be said about the side-mounts. As far as the motion isolator goes, keep in mind that it has a mitchell mount (flat, as oppossed to a ball mount) on both top and bottom. If all you've got is sachtler legs w/ a ball head, you'll have to get a set of mitchell sticks, as well as the all important and often overlooked mitchell to ball adapter. Good luck, don't kill anyone! J

I'd say building your own camera car is one of those technical "dead-ends" that would take away from what you actually want to do, which is make a film. It would sort of be like dragging a steamship over a mountain so you could produce an opera. Besides the engine noise, it's really tough to be smooth and hit marks w/ a pickup truck. An alternative to laying down tons of track for long walk and talks is to get a doorway or western dolly and use the Chapman Motion Isolator head. It helps to pick a smooth stretch of pavement; but you can always fill in the potholes yourself. I'm sure your city won't mind! (Of course, I may be lying; I am posting anonymously. :o )