Jon Rosenbloom

Have you done film-out on "Stay Cool?" I'm curious how that look translates to physical grain.

Excellent. One minor quibble is the wrinkled eyes of the girl under the umbrella at the start of the reel.

You cut your reel on iMovie???? Surely, they have a copy of Final Cut floating around the clubhouse.

"Available light?" Well, the lights are available for rental at Camera Service Center :D . For the cafe scenes, the lighting plan was to use four muslin-balls, but this "evolved" into a grid with lots of lights and flags. A lot of the look was achieved with production design. They brought in glass cases, and mirrors, and glass cake trays to shoot through, or use as foreground elements. (As well as the pies and blue-frosted cupcakes) The camera scenic was constantly shifting the window lettering to suit the given shot. Any time we saw the street it was given a wet down. I remember thinking that if the master zoom and the O'Conner fluid head were good enough for DK, then they would be good enough for me.

Check out the "Silent Cat" at http://www.thatcatcamerasupport.com

I recall when I was authoring my DVD, that an HD or Blue Ray version was way out of reach.

So, it's not just me? I was really bummed after watching one of my projects on my iMac. The same film looks quite grand on my standard-def TV. The same can be said for my reel. The problem is, I think most people will just pop the DVD's into their computers ...

No wonder Drucker's always busy when I call him :rolleyes: . Ok, instead of boring, today was really annoying, but I'm taking another look ... I'm still disappointed. I know you have a wealth of accomplished shots to draw from, but for me, this reel isn't flowing or showcasing your eye and sense of style the way your previous reel does. The opening shot is vague. (Is it too cliche to suggest flipping the first two, so you start with the girl opening the door, and then the bathtub shot makes more sense?) You have a five minute steadi-cam shot of the guys around the car, but in your reel it's reduced to a 2 second clip that looks almost static. Here's a shot in a club where you're on the move, lots of extras, lots going on, the camera flips. That's a great shot, but it's follows some nice, standard coverage mediums. Don't have a clean way to wrap up the critique ... Except to say I critique you only with the greatest confidence that you've got a great eye and I've seen great stuff from you, and I expect to see more. Best, Jon.

Hey Gus, I'm a little disappointed by this, because I'm generally blown away by the stuff you post. Maybe the image quality hasn't translated to vimeo, or maybe I'm at the end of one the most boring days of work in recent memory ... I can't quite put my finger on anything specific, except you should put the last shot first. Best, Jon.

Check out David Mullen's "In Production" thread for "The Sophomore." He did have lifts and big lights, but he also did amazing things with bounce boards and daylight leekos.

Thanks, Tim. Ditto for you ... and Gus. BTW, Has anyone got a response??

Of course I'm kidding! Jeez! (But, I do want the guy to look at my site.)

It can depend on any number of factors. Foremost is, what do you want the shot to look like? What speed film are you shooting? What stop do you want to work at? For instance, if you shoot digital video w/ a lens adapter that soaks up 2 stops, then you may need to add some ambient, directionless light. At the end of "American Centurion" - that incredibly influential and popular short film I shot last year :angry: - we had a three wall set, over which I placed a 12'x12' bleached muslin, into which I skimmed 5 or 6 2k's so that I could get some base level of even, directionless light. ( ) Conversely, if you're shooting at 500 asa, then you can pretty much set your key, fill, back lights and see how they bounce into the room. Most shows I grip on have a ton of baylights, but they're mostly superfluous.

I am way more professional and serious than everyone else who's answered. http://www.jrocam.com

Since you're using such a small unit (1.2K hmi), just put a crank stand on scaffolding, and undersling the light on a 2k triple header. That will make it much easier to hide. If the ground is a little uneven, you can put 2"x12"x16' planks under the scaffold wheels so that it's easy to roll around.

Really good. Lose the guy at the table.

I'd edit out the number of days that you worked on something. It's like you're worried someone will catch you trying to inflate your credits, when the fact is we're all too busy inflating our own credits to try to catch you! We're all "daily employees." If you get to an interview, then you can say you were a day-player ...

Never shot a feature myself, but my guess is to read the script so many times it makes you sick to look at it. Just know it inside and out. Your schedule and your locations are all going to change anyway. Someone's going to spill coffee all over you three ring binder. The only way to roll with the chaos is to always know where you are in the story. Lighting and photographing are things you - I presume - know anyway.

Exactly, Walter. So, what is the point of these lines, besides distracting the operator? Most anything I shoot on one these cameras is going to be finished 16:9, so if a mike dips in, or I catch a lenser on the edge of the viewfinder, it's in the shot. Give me a little room!

Shooting 35mm is a much more straightforward process. Also, 35mm will let you work at faster film speeds, so you might get away with smaller lights, and thus smaller generators. (Though I work on plenty of 35mm shows where everything is as big as possible.) On the other hand, super-16mm is easier on your camera department as far as handling/ storing the gear, and holding focus. It's quicker and nimbler. If you're not worried about underexposing, you could shoot super-16, but then you have to worry about how the DI or the blow-up to 35mm is going to affect the look of the film. Also, you're liable to burn hours and hours splitting hairs with the producers about the endless workflow possibilities. That alone is reason to stick with 35mm.

Sell your car when you arrive. Having a car here is a total pain in the ass. There is work in NY. Starting out, much of it will be totally shitty, but you can say the same for moving to LA. It's very busy in the union world right now, but there's no way to project what it will be like in 18 months when you can get on the permit list. Your only hope of joining L52 is to work, hope you hook up with some people who get called to do "permit work," have them hook you up with permit work, and then fit in with the union guys who hire you, and hope they like you enough to help you get in. It's a long shot, but you're at the age when you should be taking long shots.

Hmmm. Sounds complex. Maybe it's why I don't have a flourishing DP career, but if I were shooting something like this, I think I'd often find myself saying "Gee, that sounds like a really tough shot, maybe we can simplify it." Of course you want to carry out the director's vision, but you also want to not blow all your time threading the camera through the eye of a needle, so to speak. But, if you got all those tough shots, then more power to you.

Steadi-cam. A good operator should be able to hold a still frame.

Pretty much anything from early - including silent - to classic Hitchcock. Almost anything by Buster Keaton, especially "The General." Also "Greed," by Erich von Stroheim. They made a lot of silent movies way back when. Many are standard studio crap, but the good ones are really good!

Are no-water urinals ruining truck stops?