Jon Rosenbloom

Silly question, but: (In no particular order) James Wong Howe, Gregg Toland, Stanley Cortez, John Alcott , Robert Flaherty, Karl Fruend, Storarro, Giuseppe Rotunno, Gordon Willis, Michael Chapman, Tonino Delli Colli ... this topic would be a good way to kill an afternoon. Would you include DW Griffith's camera-man?

Many points to make: First, yes, every photographer should read "The Negative" by Ansel Adams. Having read the book, you should shoot a lot of slides on a manual exposure camera, and bracket your exposures. Stick your hand in front of the camera, shoot it w/ the needle in the middle of the scale. Stop down, stop down some more, open the aperature, etc. Develop normal. Observe. You'll be able to see what David means by a thin negative. When you develop your skills, your approach will be up to you. Some DP's like to shoot an optimally dense negative no matter what the scene, not too thin, and not too thick. I've known TV DP's who underexpose everything by 3 stops because the post-people transfer his footage very bright. (Personally, if it's not a "normal" light scene, I like to nudge the stop towards the final look.) As far as the practical lights go: Film is way more forgiving than video. If the practicals are too bright, you can do a few things: You can put in lower wattage bulbs, put the practicals on hand dimmers, or - if you're looking at a lamp w/ a lampshade - you can put some ND gel on the inside of the shade that's facing the camera. This last bit is a pain-in-the ass, but w/ mini DV it's still often needed. You should practice cutting and taping the gel a few times before you blow an hour on the set trying to figure it out. Video Tap: You would be amazed at how strong an influence the video tap can have on lighting. (Though, you've got to be a real pro to do this.) Conrad Hall: I'm between Phil and Kevin on this. If you've got 30 experienced lighting technicians, a truck full of Primo lenses, million dollar sets, and so-on, it's a good bet that you're going to come up w/ a decent image. You could almost phone it in, you could sit in the chair, tell the operator to set up an M/CU, tell the gaffer it's a bright sunny day, and so on. But, there's a whole lot of pre-production during which you're going to have to answer some mighty big questions, and you better know what you're doing. Also, it's not necessarily the DP's technical skill for which he gets hired, but his taste, his vision, his instinct for what will serve the script. But yes, Conrad Hall had a lot of money to work. I remember in the AC article on "Road to Perdition," the gaffer explained that they didn't do any pre-lighting. Those 40' trailers of Grip and Camera and Lighting equipment were viewed as Connie's tool box.

"The light in paintings is not always naturalistic -- look at some Post-Impressionism or Modern art and its flatness of light in favor of color, as if a flash photo was taken. And neither are all paintings three-dimensional -- look at pre-Renaissance art or Japanese art, etc." Of course. I was referring to only the frames posted in this discussion. I'm curious how you define "painterly," and how does that definition inform your photography? The frames from "The Duelists" look almost like they could be paintings, and none of the shots from the latest episode of "Law & Order" will ever be called "painterly." So, what does one have that the other doesn't? Lastly, can the footage I shot w/ the lense cap on be called "Rothko-esque?"

Let's veer into "Barry Lyndon." I often think of this film when reading technical discussions about lenses, camera options, telecine options - 2k or 4k, etc. "Barry Lyndon" was made w/ technology that is now 30 years old (ancient in our biz.) and it is still the most beautiful film you will ever see. I see this movie every few years. Every time I see it I think, "Yeah, I thought it's the most beautiful movie ever, but my memory must just be embellished." And then I see it, and God-damn if that is not the most beautifuly shot film I've ever seen. Some people always bring up how over budget or behind schedule the shoot was, or how indulgent Kubrick was. But, BL was shot before digital intermediates. The landscapes are precisely framed, the actors are exactly on their marks, even the clouds hang perfectly in the compositions (Watch the scene near the beginning where Molly dances w/ the Captain w/ whom Raymond will duel). Is it possible they matted in the clouds? If not, then they would just have to wait for the clouds to be perfect, even if this meant getting everyone in costume, setting up all the equipment, and then sending everyone home to come back and try again the next day. I suppose if you're a bean-counter, then it's an indulgent approach. But, it wasn't my money; I just get to enjoy the result.

I'm not saying the technical execution is easy, or isn't well done. I loved looking at the film (a bit grainy, though.), but, as it is, the film diminishes the artists vision. Surely, 17th century Delft didn't look strictly like a bunch of Vermeer paintings. In such a "pro-art" film, I think it would have added a layer of wonder, over the usual "artist as rock-star" melodrama, to photographically dramatise that (if not how) Vermeer was able to fashion his painted vision of the world from (lesser) reality. How about a film about Turner? Would you actually shoot it to look like a bunch of Turner paintings? What makes these frames qualify as "painterly?" (I have to object to the "Goya" frames; they look entirely lit for film.) Aside from the costumes and production design, I'll hazard to say the lighting is very naturalistic; no unmotivated sources in Barry Lyndon. Also, these are all very three dimensional frames, w/ some pretty deep focus. Any other ideas?

Hey Daniel, You do realize I didn't really expect you to mount an ultra-dino on a 120' condor? My point, which Kevin also made, is that doing a Night Exterior can be a really big job. On TV shows or movies on which I've been a grip, this kind of shooting can easily soak up 10 electricians and 10 grips, plus another 8 guys on a rigging crew. But you're a student. You're going to be working small. I hesitate to suggest getting a generator, because then you'll have to find someone to operate it and you'll have to make sure that it's a quiet one. The first thing you need is electricity. Assuming you're NOT getting a genny, then the most powerful light you can use is a 1.2K par HMI. Doesn't matter what par stands for. I hope to God that at this point of your education you know that HMI means it produces daylight. I know from experience that - as far as students go - these lights aren't cheap, but, if you can get 2 of these lights, then you can use one as the 3/4 backlight, and throw the other onto the background from the same spot. (3/4 backlight: Imagine a clockface: The camera is at 6 o'clock, the subject is in the center of the circle, the 3/4 backlight is halfway between one and two o'clock. 3/4 back is very basic; it "always" looks good. Don't ask me why.) Throw some 1/4 cto on the hmi's and live with the blue; student film, there'll be others. If you're friend has anything bigger than a 2k, don't bother taking it; you won't be able to plug it in. (Unless you're in England, in which case my numbers are all wrong.) Good luck! "Wind up?" you mean a crank stand. Yes these are much better, safer, for lights. Chain vices: 2 are usually enough.

Also, Is it really a big creative leap to shoot a movie about Vermeer so that it looks like a Vermeer painting?

If nothing else, these frames show how colaborative a medium motion picture is. Without the extremely competent contributions from costumes, production design, hair and makeup, the lighting really wouldn't matter for much, and these frames wouldn't be very painterly.

Candlestick: 1 1/4" steel pipe, about 40" long w/ a 2K receiver in one end. Chain vise grip: One of those locking pliers that has about 20" of bicycle chain attached to it. It's basically a c-clamp for round stuff. Mambo Combo: A big ass, freakin' heavy stand, that has a 4 1/2" grip head and a 2k receiver at the top. They extend to about 22' high, and you can mount a 5k, or a 4k par on it. Anything bigger and things get kind of wobbly. Take a look at the Mathew's (or Arri, or Avenger, or Norms) catalog and this stuff will make a lot more sense.

Well, lets not worry about "look" or "style," and just talk about what one needs for some basic exposure on a night exterior in the country. I think a super-dino on a 120 foot articulating lift will give you a lot of light over a large area. It's not as high or big as a set of Musco lights, but - as you say - you're on a budget. Just put the super-dino up as a 3/4 backlight, and then for fill behind the camera, you can bounce a couple of maxi-brutes into a 12'x12' muslin or ultra-bounce. Simple, two point lighting. (Just make sure the generators are far enough away they don't bother the sound mixer.) :)

Forgot that I started this topic. Well, the shoot happenned before the holidays, and the results were pretty laughable, but fairly instructive. Here are the details: The director bought a Canon xl-2, so that's what we used (Mini DV 4:1:1 color). We set it at 30p. We lit the greenscreen w/ four kino's, and we tried to get it 2 stops under the actors' key, but we were down to one bulb at low on each kino, so the difference was more like 1.5 stops. The greenscreen looked great. We bought a little hand steamer, and steamed out the wrinkles. When the gaffer first metered it he said everything was w/in a third to a half stop. We tweaked the lights, and got it to w/in a tenth. The backround plates in the finished piece are seamless. HOWEVER, we shot the plates after shooting the foreground. In shooting the FG, we didn't have much time to keep the talent, and we didn't have any big lights - just a bunch of inkies, really, so I lit it hard, like a warm, sunny afternoon. The BG, of course, was shot on a completely gray, dark, overcast day, so the combination of FG and BG is quite preposterous. (I did suggest waiting for a sunny day.) Last, the director put the elements together using Final Cut's compositor. All in all, I think the results confirm everything that one is likely to read in these various forums: Mini-DV is not suited for chroma-keying, and Final-Cut's compositor is pretty weak as well. Last, the director was the one doing the compositing, and this was his first experience w/ this sort of project. More later, if anyone's interested. (I can describe "preposterous.")

Hi all, Two questions: First, how does the search engine on this forum work? I enter key words like "green screen," and get no response. Second: My next assignment involves a green screen. I've been present on plenty of green screen days as a technician, but this will be my first as the shooter. Here's what I'm planning: Light the screen (12'x20') evenly w/ kinos, and hang black teasers and curtains right up to the frameline. (I'll keep the "set" in front of the teasers. My actor lights are tungsten, so I'm going to have the green screen lights be tungsten too, or, will it help to put some daylight bulbs in the kinos? Even though I'm shooting on the DVX-100a, I might bring my incident meter. How should the green screen exposure compare to the actors' exposure? Same stop, less, more?? We'll be shooting in 24p or 24pa. Will the plates have to be shot in the same format? In fact, if I shoot in 24pa, will the principal photography and the plates will have mismatched judder frames which will ruin the whole thing? What else am I missing? I'm good at getting everything together, and lighting and shooting, but I tend to blank out when considering digital shooting, and post options. (Keep in mind my thread in the SDX-900 forum.) Thanks for the info.

I guess if you "blanketed" the ceiling w/ kino's it might work. I think the point of the studio booklight was just to take the theory about an even source to its practical limit.

Thanks for the support. I'm pretty ok w/ the whole thing now, but the "it's all my fault" eMail to the director was a tough one to send. As for being overwhelmed on set, this was, actually, the first - and so far only - job I had on which I had an A/C, a gaffer, AND a grip. We also had a production designer, set dresser, hair, make-up, ad's, etc. And, they all thought I did a great job ... until ... Whoops, clang. What I don't get is this: I checked the camera out w/ the tech at the rental house. I know we went through the menu's, and I know that I saw the two different aspects in the viewfinder, so what happenned? It's a total mystery to me. fstop, "turned out I actually had the camera in 16:9, I just hadn't set the monitor to that ratio! " Isn't the viewfinder monitor autorange to the aspect ratio in which you're shooting? (or do you mean an outboard monitor?

Well, I got to the bottom of the problem and found ... me! I played the masters back through the camera and they came up in beautifully composed 4x3. So, as Phil says, I stuffed it up quite royally. The director is still speaking to me, but I'm not so sure he's going to hire me again. I'd love to discuss this more in depth, but I've got two shoots in the next week that I have to screw up ... I mean, prepare for :huh:

Hey Rolfe, I was there for only a few days of reshoots, so I can't really answer your questions too exactly. Also, by "infinity cove" do you mean a white cyc? Yeah, the interiors were studio sets, and the studio had a white cieling, but I don't know that they ever shot into the studio walls. As for the lanterns, I've seen china-balls moved around on walk and talks plenty of times; it's entirely possible he did that, I just didn't see it. Anyway, it seemed that that incredibly soft top source was the main thing going, w/ a dimmed down china-ball added as a soft, motivated key. For all the 20K's shooting into the ceiling, there really wasn't alot of light on set. Also, it wasn't bleached muslin but painters' canvas (fire-proofed) that was stretched over the sets. (So, if you've got the budget, I guess there's something even heavier than muslin to tie to a 12x12!) Basically, the canvas diffusion took the place of the pipe grid that would normally hang over the set. As for the windows, we blacked them out for some night shots, but rather than just put duvateen behind them, we spray mounted clear heat-shield gel to black foam-core, so the black had a bit of "sparkle" or crinkle in it. I don't think I'm giving away any secrets, since we did the same thing on "Melinda & Melinda." I was around for just about that entire shoot, so I'll be more specific on that film when the time comes.

As David's response suggests, your's is a somewhat open-ended question. But, since you're in the low-budget student realm let's assume you want an approach that's fast, cheap, and you probably don't want to get too far away from "reality." W/ the equipment you've got, especially the dvx-100 (which doesn't need a lot of light), you'll find that turning off some lights here and there is going to be the quickest, cheapest way to create some contrast and get away from bland reality. Also, if you get some black-wrap and duvateen (black cloth), you can tease some of the flo's off the walls. Really, the principles of lighting (key light, fill light, back light, separation, ratio, etc.) stay the same no matter what the budget. In your situation, you just have to find the light you want, and turn off the lights you don't want. Make sure to read the instruction manual for the DVX, and be familiar w/ how to make the camera stay in the settings you set. Use the mode check button frequently. Also, if you can get a monitor, that will be an enormous help, because the on-board monitor can be really misleading. I would trade lights for a monitor. Have at least one small bead-board (2'x4') for fill. Hope this helps!

Back to "Birth." Basically, the entire ceiling of the studio was made into a book light; the ceiling was painted white, lots of lights bounced into it, and a fire-proof bleached muslin (studio size) was suspended above the sets. I don't know if it was 100% "shadowless," but this was the softest light I've ever seen in a studio, and quite creepy to boot. Don't know the film stock, but I'm pretty sure he exposed two stops under, and then pulled the film two stops. Chinese lanterns seemed to be in favor for key-lights. I recall for a night exterior, we rigged a small condor with ... two chinese lanterns! The coolest trick I saw was surrounding Lauren Bacall on three sides w/ 8x8 bleached-muslins. All they had to pick up was the soft top light, but it worked beautifully.

Hey Atavist, Well, at last I get a little love :) In answer to your questions: 1. Frame grab: No, I don't have the masters or the hardware/ software to post them here. (I'm pretty backwards computer wise.) I think I'm just going to get the masters, take them back to the rental house and play them through an sdx-900 or a Panasonic deck. 2."What's confusing me is your remark: 'When we deselected "anamorphic," the window changed to a rectangle' Obviously, this is OPPOSITE what Final Cut Pro is supposed to do." Yup, that's confusing, by I stand by it. Saw it w/ my own eyes, twice, on different days, different Macs. 3. Wide angle lense used?: Yeah, we used the Fujinon standard and wide zoom lenses that you would take out on an EPK or news shoot. We certainly did some shots w/ the wide at it's widest, but the problem is evident also in shots that we plainly did at longer focal lengths. (MCU's w/ shallow depth of field.) Well, thanks everyone for your interest in this PITA subject. I will update after I see the masters. J-Ro.

Thanks Phil, The image is a 16:9 frame inside a 4:3 frame, w/ the mask. As I said, it's possible I fudged it up, but - if memory serves, the viewfinder displays plenty of info, including in which aspect ratio it's recording.

Hi, I'll try to clarify: We shot in 16x9. Viewed on either my tv or video projected in a theatre, we see a letterboxed image, in which the faces look a little "vertically squeezed," or "horizontally stretched", or (pick an adjective, just not "tall and thin"). It's subtle on tv, but not so subtle on a movie screen (even a little NYC movie screen ;)). Basically, it's close to the scenario Atavist describes in his last post; the output is 4:3 letterboxed, except we've never viewed it on a 16x9 monitor. Is it possible I mistakenly let the camera slip into 4:3 for 4 days? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think that me and the director and my A/C are such hacks that we wouldn't have noticed. Besides, the framing works for 16x9. As for what I saw when I had the hard drive: I saw this only on the Apple's CRT. The clips all openned up into a square window, and exhibited the distortion. When we deselected "anamorphic," the window changed to a rectangle, and the distortion was gone. This suggests to me that we had the camera in 16x9, and that something has gone amiss in the post-production phase. You may have guessed that this is becoming a point of contention between me and the post house.

Yes, short and fat is the effect, but it's subtle, and you really see it only in the closeups. But, everyone sees it. I did neglect to mention that I did once have the final-cut media at my disposal, brought it to a friend's house quite proud of my work. Long story, short: he found that an (the?) anamorphic setting had been selected for every shot. Unclick anamorphic, and the result was a 16x9 window on his computer's monitor, no short and fat effect.

On a short film, we decided to use this camera in part because of it's native 16:9 chips. On the shoot, the camera was set for 16:9 recording, I framed for 16:9, but post-production, after a couple of tries, can not produce a final project in which the image does not look squeezed. The frames are intact - no one's head is cut off, the compostions are balanced - but it looks like a 4:3 image that's been squeezed to fit into a 16:9 mask. Does this situation sound familiar?

Hey Josh, The cheapest, easiest, thing to do is move the lights you have closer to the axis of your lense. :) Beyond that , how 'bout building your own "chimera" out of foamcore? If you can't afford grip stands and flags, then you should steer clear of book lights. Further, as you have guessed, w/ a book, you've got to start out w/ more light. (More light, more juice, more $$.) Last, book lights - w/ all those stands and flags to control them - are a labor intensive pain-in-the-A.. to set up and move around. If you're working on the cheap, a 2k soft light w/ a 2'x3' diffusion in front is way more sensible.

Hey David, As long as we're mentioning Tarkovsky, I wonder if you have any similar info on "Nostalghia," which IMHO is right up there in the "Barry Lyndon" level of most beautifully photographed films ever. (I tried this topic last year, but no one was interested.) I've seen a Russian "making of" doc, but the film-maker aped Tarkovsky's own style, so it wasn't too helpful on the question of craft. Also, the optical process you described for "Sacrifice" seems like it would have been pretty tough to pull off - to exactly match an entire movie's worth of frames from one pass to the next. Thanks for the excellent info.