Mathew Rudenberg

4k par head = roughly 40lb, 4x4 mirror board = roughly 50lb... also, a 4x4 mirror board has a larger surface area and is thus much more susceptible to wind. I saw one that had 5 ball busters on it blown off a 4 story building, it's path to the ground was interrupted by an 18k ballast - messy. Better then a person though. If you're going up high with it make sure to secure it with tie lines.

I've heard the terminology before, but in a different way - man = 4', boy = 2' fat = 4bank, skinny = 2bank. Therefore skinny boy, fat man, etc. rather than tall man, short boy, which doesn't make as much sense because 'boy' implies 'short' but whatever works works. I guess fat man is quicker to say then 4 foot 4 bank but it never caught on for me. Like a gaffer I knew who called black wrap 'run DMC' A wall'o'lite would probably be an obese Robert Wadlow :) Anyway, even the DC powered kinos means batteries, inverters and ballasts, which leads to a messy bunch of cables and gak. My approach in this situation would be to get a couple of 1x1 litepanels powered off anton bauer batteries and join them together to make a source of whatever size you like. I think it would be easier to deal with and to carry.

I shot with a mixed set of S4s and S5s for a season - I like the Cookes a lot and I'd say there's very little visual difference between the two. The only visual difference I noticed was I felt like the bokeh on the S5s was slightly creamier at a 2.0 than with the S4s at the same stop. Not a very technical description I know, I mean a little smoother and softer. They're beautiful at a 1.3 but I seldom shoot that wide. They are much much heavier than the S4s, heavier than the angenieaux optimos zooms as well, so I'd keep that in mind if you have a lot of hand held.

Here are some higher res versions of the images you posted - it helps you see the eyelights and interpret the lighting a little better: sorry, couldn't resist...

One solution would be to rig a couple of the red heads to the lamp post pointing down (gelled with your sodium vapor combo of choice). Hard top light could be suitable for a gritty stabbing scene and that should give you enough light to shoot at a lower iso. Then just fill in the eyes for close ups with some units from the ground. The typical tool for this would be a poultry bracket (get it - pole-tree :) ) Note - If you're inexperienced at rigging there are potential dangers involved with putting heavy electrified metal objects over actors heads - ideally find an experienced grip to help. Make sure the light are secured and and have a secondary safety line in case the first point comes loose. Also, it's your choice but do you really want to neutralize the orange - strange colors can be fun at night - you could even introduce a little blue 'moonlight' if you want to play with color contrast. The biggest problem I see with your stills is that there doesn't appear to be a lot of light in the deep background. You may want to throw some dedos far back in the frame so you're not just shooting heads against blackness.

For a tv show I did fairly extensive tests on the MX for finishing at 1080p and viewing on both a pro CRT and a less calibrated plasma, I used redcolor to set the iso for the tests. I would say the image gets very slightly cleaner at 320 and below, but the difference is negligible and not worth sacrificing head room for me. Between 400 and 1250 I couldn't identify any noticeable change in shadow noise at 1080p. I would say that is the optimal exposure range for the camera. Above that I did notice some grain at 1600 and 2000 but it felt organic and I would be willing to go that deep if I needed to. I didn't shoot tests for higher iso's because I really didn't expect it to hold up to 2000 as well as it did. Based on the tests on the MX sensor I usually try to shoot 640 in redcolor. I would happily go to 1250 if I wanted, and do 2000 if I had to.

At 0:16 on the video you can see what appears to be a row of spacelights reflected on the floor of the court. Incidentally, Mr Mullen did some quite beautiful and unique lighting of a basketball court in Assassination of a High School President with a number of par cans - a fairly economical solution but requiring a large amount of rigging. It's definitely worth looking at if you're interested in seeing different approaches.

On a smaller shoot this is true - on a larger shoot there is a dedicated 'loader' position - a crew member that stays on the truck and handles stock inventory and loading. That being said, the camera path is supposedly loader -> 2nd AC -> 1st AC -> Camera op, so if you're second ACing it will be expected that you know how to load, and it is entirely possible that the situation will come up where you have to. So - if you plan to work in the camera department on a film shoot it would certainly be a good idea to get your hands on some mags and dummy film and practice loading until you're 100% confident at it. If you work for free your mistakes will probably be mostly forgiven - do that until you stop making mistakes and then start going for the paid jobs. Everyone has to start with no experience, work to develop it and you'll no longer have the problem. I would suggest going to film schools and seeing if they need crew, there's usually a lot of productions going on that are hopefully slighter better run then the free jobs on craigslist.

Frequently I find directors have a lot to say about the look of their film. Opinions about what aspect ratio it should be for example, but also what format - be it anamorphic, spherical, or digital - tend to dictate what camera we will use. I offer advice and experience, as I can help them understand the pros and cons (and repercussions in the case of DSLRs) of their decisions. In the end though, it is still their choice. In this case, however, I think the budget will ultimately decide. 10 to 15 isn't what I would consider a low budg affair, more like no budg. I would think a lot of the light and camera gear would be predominantly dictated by what people own and are willing to lend to you. I imagine you're working for free or close to it, and so your investment of time in the film should give you a greater say as to the format then if you were simply a hired gun. If using a DSLR is going to make the process of shooting this film both unpleasant and unrewarding you should make that clear to the director. Also, I know there are a lot of anti-shallow DOF people on this forum for some reason, perhaps because it seems like a 'cheat' or an easy way to get a professional looking image, or possibly because it is so popular right now. Regardless of that, I would think about the fact that on your budget you are probably not going to be able to afford a lot in terms of production design - and shallow focus shots will hide backgrounds and help you get away with less, so I think it has its advantages on a low budg film - ie. it can make it look bigger budget then it is. Christopher, what that test is attempting to demonstrate is how quickly the 7d falls apart under color correction. I think it fails however, because the 7 step greyscale does not show the full dynamic range of the 7d in the first place, for that you would need something like this. Since there are another couple of stops outside the chart, the 7d probably falls apart even faster than the test illustrates - with only two or three stops manipulation total, rather then five.

Every time a low budget job comes up I find myself massively torn. The concept that always appeals to me most is that I could use a cinemafied DSLR for A cam (cinema lenses, follow focus, monitor etc) and introduce stripped down b-cam (no monitoring, still lenses) that matches perfectly for relatively little. On the one hand certain aspects of the DSLR are highly tempting, on the other hand there's a lot of compromises. The major problems I see with DSLR's are: - Very little post flexibility. Unlike with a raw camera or film, you better come pretty close to nailing your white balance and exposure, because there's not a lot of room for tweaking in post. - Separate system sound with no time code or lock-it boxes means slating and post syncing which can take time. - Monitoring. This is the single biggest problem for me - Generally I find that it's nice to be able to have the director, the operator, and the AC be able to see the image simultaneously. For this to happen means using converter boxes to go to HD-SDI or dealing with non-pro HDMI spltters and cables. Either way it introduces many many connections where things can and do go wrong again and again. This has probably been the most time consuming problem I've experienced on an HDSLR shoot. - As you said, transcoding adds an extra step to your post flow, but I guess that's fairly common. The ultimate factor for me is always time - to properly kit out a 5d for film work means introducing a lot of fiddly bits which means that you will always lose time when something goes down - if you can afford to spend a little more time rather than money, which is usually the benefit of a low budg shoot than it may be worth while...

This has been making the internet rounds - it seems relevant to your interest. http://shouldiworkforfree.com/

I meant Oscar - don't know where I got Bruno from Here is the issue

According to American Cinematographer, all the scenes when Bruno is alive were shot 35mm with an Arricam lite - Noe does most of his own handheld operating. I would imagine it was shot handheld with a fair amount of post manipulation and reframing...

This is just my two cents, and I totally respect and think everyone else's interpretations are valid. It just seemed to me that the whole point of the film was for it to be highly subjective, to the point where often we don't know whether what she's seeing is real or imagined. An unreliable narrator, if you please. Since her grip on reality is decaying, it makes sense that the image is also grainy and shaky, in essence it is an expressive use of the camera, inviting the audience to feel the same disorientation and confusion that she feels. I thought seeing the ballet as a dancer rather then as an audience was an interesting and powerful choice, as to observe ballet is to enjoy its beauty, but to perform it must be dizzying to say the least. The handheld did not make it feel real to me - quite the opposite in fact. In short, it worked for me, but I totally see why it would not be everyone's cup of dried leaves in heated water. Finally, I agree with the OP - the handheld work, especially in the opening scene, kind of blew my mind. Since then it's been a little unblown as I've heard there was a fair amount of punching in and stabilizing, as well as digital joining of shots. Still impressive though.

I'm not sure if this was a typo on your part, but to be clear, you would add green and CTO to your lights, not to the existing globes. If you plan to gel the existing globes you would add minus green (essentially magenta) to cancel the green spike, and while that is certainly an option (and sometimes necessary) it is usually a lot of work to gel that many flourescents, also it substantially knocks down your light output. the most common flourescents you'll find are cool white and warm white. According to the book both are matched with full +green. If the globes are cool white (4500 Kelvin) you're probably best off going daylight and adding 1/4 CTO If warm white(3000 Kelvin) then tungsten and 1/4 CTO is somewhat easier. But I would bring a couple of cuts of gel and eyeball it. The camera knows better then any book. Also, don't worry too much - a little variation isn't a big deal, as long as you get it in the right ball park.

Here are my theories for whatever it's worth: Don't make it too long - if they get bored you've lost them. Don't put anything bad on it to flesh it out - they'll always remember the worst shot. Don't keep coming back to shots from the same project (unless they really don't look like they're from the same project) - it makes it look like you have limited experience. Remember, the point of a reel is to get invited in for a meeting - you just need to show them enough to get them wanting to see more. The rest is up to you. Beyond that, I think it depends on your target market. Producers are fairly straightforward - They want to see something that will demonstrate that you are capable of doing the job. They want to see that you've done what they're doing... If they're doing a kids comedy, they'll want to see that you've done comedy with kids, or failing that, kids and comedy. If you only have drama it'll take some extra convincing to get them to hire you for comedy. To this end I think variety is key - the more variety on your reel the greater the chance they'll see something that is suitable. If you can, tailor your reel to the job you're applying for. What I do is to have a general reel but also send links to certain projects that are similar to the one I'm applying for - ie Here's my reel, and here's a link to this kids comedy I shot... They also want to see that someone's trusted you with money - If you've only shot student films and low budg music videos it's going to be hard to convince them to hire you to shoot a multi-million dollar film, or anything really - I think demonstrating that you've worked with a budget will always benefit you. When you're starting out this is tricky, because you haven't necessarily worked with money - so you have to be clever. Pick shots that look expensive. Close ups are cheap, unless there's a famous actor in them. Wide shots, dolly shots, lots of extras, good vfx - these things say expensive, even if they weren't. If you're targeting directors it gets much more elusive. I find that directors are more interested in tone than anything else - they want to see something that feels like they want their project to feel. This makes them very hard to pick shots for - I would say just put your favourite, most compelling shots up because hey, if they respond to the same things as you you'll enjoy working with them more. Sadly, I think the money thing is the most important these days. with dslr's it's fairly easy to make some good looking footage for cheap, so just being good isn't enough anymore. That reminds me, I need to recut my reel :)

Nope :) Seriously though, as always it depends on the story. If it's just a regular classroom shot in a naturalistic manner your best bet is to use what exists and augment it with kinos and HMIs - just remember to add the right amount of +green and CTO to match the existing globes (if you're going for color uniformity of course). If you were planning to light high key and you can't use windows a soft source from the ceiling is possibly the best choice... If, on the other hand, the scene is, say, a dark secret society meeting in a classroom at night, you could turn off the overheads and play with some noir lighting and wacky colors. It just depends how stylized you want to go.

You can rent strips of sockets from prop houses, I don't know exactly where but I've seen them brought to set several times. Unfortunately, as with most practicals art brings to set, they aren't always in the best condition - I've had to deal with with exposed wire or shorts hidden in the line, so be careful if you go this route. If you're going to make them yourself keep in mind the costs are going to mount up, as well as the time required to build it. The standard quick on socket would be the eagle medium base socket You are supposed to be able to place the wire and twist and the spikes should pierce the wire perfectly. Often they don't, so it's a good idea to have a voltmeter and check them. Fortunately they can't really short out so you should be safe even if the points don't line up perfectly. I recommend not using zip cord (18 gauge) as it has a very high resistance - you'd be safer at 12 or 14 gauge. Don't over-amp the cable - I'd probably stick with no more than 20 globes a strand (20 x 60w = 1200w) and give you roughly 10 amps a strand which leaves plenty of headroom. Close off the exposed ends with electrical tape so you don't get bit. Remember it's going to get pretty damn hot in there when you're burning 100 60 watt globes. Have fun and be careful.

That's actually a great little summary - thanks David

"okay, we need to save some time, so let's shoot this next scene on the 5d because it doesn't need lighting or crew..."

Seconded, looks like 5D with a lot of contrast, lots of blown outness and crushed shadows. Interestingly it looks like they're using a ring light, which of course helps you get the camera close without causing shadows on the talent's face. You can see its reflections pretty clearly at 2:14 in the first vid, looks like it's not a pro ring like the kamio, but possibly a store bought round flourescent... Looks like it was rigged next to the camera in the first video, but by the second they had worked out how to get it to fit around the lens. Also, some pretty bad twixtoring/frame interpolation artifacts in the slo-mo in the second vid at 3:05 - is that better then a straight slow down? I guess most viewers wouldn't notice...

That is rather interesting - if the drivers are pulling from the same photosite over the same period of time how do they capture different exposures? I can understand the Epic approach of varying the shutter speed but this seems to be something altogether different...

Hmm, I would say quite the opposite - a lot of wider lenses, often up close.

100 asa is pretty slow, I think you'll be a challenged to do anything but low key with that speed film :) you may want to push it a stop just to make your job a little easier, depending on what lights you have access to Still, totally possible - I'd probably shy away from photofloods in the confined ceiling fixtures or those wall sconces which seem to be made of glass (the heat could shatter them... or start a fire) If you want to use the ceiling cans to make pools of light I would look into mr16 or standard base par 38s - they'll focus the light downwards without spreading it everywhere. Also a common trick it to lay a couple of kino bare globes behind the bar to bring up the bartender and the glasses. Usually the pool table has a light over it which kind of takes care of that.

Usually when you shoot a light into a bounce you want the light positioned fairly frontal (to the bounce) so it can full the bounce evenly, thus creating the softest source. The way I've heard it used, a skip bounce is when you set the light at an extreme angle so the light skips across it rather like skipping a stone across water. Usually this is not optimal because the source is harder and output is often less. You commonly see this this when using shiny boards to redirect sunlight - if the sun is on the far side of the shiny to the subject you have to skip bounce the sunlight.