Andrew Koch

The Reala 500D is much more grainy than the Eterna. On a short I directed about 5 years ago, my Cinematographer underexposed the 500D stock by 2/3 and pushed it a stop to increase the grain. It was really grainy just as we had hoped. When you were warned about the risks of pushing 16, what were the specifics issues? The obvious one would be that you have less latitude, but I always think its more fun to take risks. I would recommend testing the 500D if you were to use it because it has a different look overall than the Eterna series.

Not to split hairs, but Harry C. Box's book is called Set Lighting Technicians Handbook. Fantastic book by the way. I think it should be required reading in film school.

Lastolite and Flexfill are two brands of handheld reflectors. They are shiny on one side and white on the other for a softer bounce. Of course you could have someone simply hold a 4x4 beadboard. You wouldn't soften the sun by adding more light, what you need to do is soften the source itself. You could do this by placing a large rag of diffusion overhead (like a silk for gridcloth)

Check out Total Eclipse of the Heart by Bonnie Tyler and Head over Heals by Tears for Fears or You're the Inspiration by Chicago. Very 80s in terms of look and style. I'd recommend using some heavy diffusion on the lens. More than normal so the effect if obnoxiously obvious. Heavy promist can have an effect along these lines. Are you shooting on film or digital? If you're shooting video maybe you can shoot it on an old eng camera or even worse, VHS-C (I'm not sure what you're workflow is, so some of these options may not work.) Lots and lots of smoke on the set. You may want to gets some fans to have the band members hair blow.

I have the NEC AccuSync LCD24WMCX. It's a 24 inch 16x10 Aspect Ratio. It's very bright and crisp. It's pretty good, but not even close to the quality of a cinema display, but it is cheaper (about 350-400 bucks). It is an LCD, so the viewing angles are limited, you really need to be looking at it straight on. I don't work for NEC. A monitor at this level is fine for editing, but if you want to do any color correction or anything else that requires accurate display of colors, contrast, brightness, etc... a computer monitor wont cut it. You will need a professional video monitor that you can calibrate. Samsung also makes a computer monitor with similar specs and price

J-beat, please change your screen name to your First and Last name as per forum rules

TKim, please change your username to your full first name, a space, and then your last name as per forum rules.

What will it take for people to change their mindsets? The average job in America is an 8 hour day, something laborers fought hard for many decades ago, and yet people think it is whining to not want to work more than 12 hours and get a 12 hour turnaround. Is our health, safety, and having some semblance of a life outside of work that unimportant to people? Just because it's the norm, does that make it acceptable. If I had a nickel for every time I hear "it is what it is" I'd own my own production company and have and afford the power to enforce better treatment of workers.

I'm sorry if my post came across as argumentative. That was not my intention.

You're reopening a can of worms that has been opened several times on this forum. There was an extensive discussion on how the audience perceives what a cinematographer does. So what if the average viewer can't tell. Many people can't tell the difference between oil and acrylic paint. Does that mean that artists should always choose acryllic because it's cheaper and most people wont notice the difference. I believe someone already said this, but it's not the audience's job to be thinking about image acquisition. But it IS our job as cinematographers to think about this stuff so the audience doesn't have to. We are hired to create the most visually compelling story possible, not to see what we can get away with. I am not going to make a film versus digital argument, but I will say this. Film looks different than digital. Not all stocks look the same and not all digital movie cameras look the same. As far as content goes, cinematography is part of the content. It affects how the story is told. Lawrence of Arabia is an example of this. The experience of seeing a 70mm print of that film is breathtaking. Could you imagine how that film's impact would change if it had been shot on an EX1. It would not be the same movie. (I feel dirty even suggesting such an impossible atrocity). I don't think it is fair for you to make a judgment against shooting film if you haven't tried it. It's like saying you don't want to try halibut because you've only had salmon and one of your friends said it tastes the same and costs more. (Sorry, kind of a crappy analogy) I can understand if its simply a matter of budget or the production choosing digital, but I think its only fair to shoot both film and digital before making a qualitative assessment. Just my two cents.

If you're shooting film and you're on a budget, you could get a simple 18% gray card. They're about 10 bucks. It's not something you would want to make yourself because it needs to be calibrated to exactly 18% so your colorist as proper reference when printing, telecine, or DI. Sure, it would be nice to have a MacBeth chart and maybe black and white chips on your grey chart, but if money is tight, the greycard will work okay.

What Country are you in? I ask this because I'm wondering why you say you only have Walmart and Home Depot type stores at your disposal. You can buy paper tape online. Studiodepot.com filmtools.com just to name a few

One thing I find interesting is that in the US, we abbreviate Director of Photography as "DP". whereas other places such as Europe say "DOP". Anybody else notice this?

A couple come to mind. Ernest R. Dickerson, Jan de Bont

If I remember correctly. there was some real vomiting in the Troma movie Terror Firmer.