Andrew Koch

You need to change your screen name to your full first and last name as per forum rules. You can do this by going into "my controls" at the top of the page. I think this might also get you more responses.

I will not speak for David, but based on these quotes from his previous post, I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that David suggested you should shoot 2.39 over 1.85. I think the story should be the reason for choosing an aspect ratio. Is there a particular story that you want to tell that requires the viewer to have a more immersive experience? As far as movie theaters making 2.39 films look smaller on 1.85 screens, I personally don't know much about that so I'll let someone else more qualified comment on that. But even if you are finding that to be happening quite a bit, I don't necessarily see how that would be an automatic deterrent from shooting in that ratio. To me, artful framing (in whatever ratio the film requires) is more important than filling a screen as large as possible. That's why it drives me nuts when people stretch their 4:3 TV shows on their 16:9 TVs. I asked someone why they watch TV distorted like that. His answer "because I am using all of the TV, I get a larger image, and I don't have to have bars on the sides." Obviously I can't agree with this, but it is this same line of thinking that led to the horrors of pan and scan. A 4:3 television will make a 2.39 image look smaller when letterboxed, but it is worth it because you get to see the whole image. So in terms of theatrical projection, yes, some theaters might make the image less tall in 2.39. It is sort of like letterboxing a TV that is not wide enough for our images in "fullscreen", but we still as filmmakers can say what we want to say because our framing is (hopefully) intact.

B. Sakthidoss. you need to use your FULL first and last name as your username. If your full first name is "B" then never mind, but if it is an abreviation, then you need to change that as it is a requirement of this forum. Just go to "my controls" at the top of the page to do so.

Have you considered 2 perf techniscope? It is 35mm, but you would be shooting and processing 50% less film than standard 4 perf 35mm and your aspect ratio is already 2:40 without the need for any anamorphic lenses. Since you are using half as much film, you are not spending much more than 16. And since you wouldn't need to rent any special lenses, it could very well be close to the same cost as 16. Of course, this is only viable if you can get a 2 perf camera and have a posthouse that can handle it.

Lighting is supposed to be determined by the story. Different stories have different requirements. There is no one style of lighting to suit every story. Natural lighting with bounce boards can be very beautiful, but try doing that when shooting massive night exteriors like those in the Dark Knight. Sometimes certain situations call for the big lights. Large lights are not necessarily bulls**t as Glen says. They can be very useful. If you are hearing recommendations for lights that you have never heard of, and you have aspirations of being a cinematographer, then you should definitely look up these lights. You should learn all the names of these lights because it is your job to know how to light. Knowing these lights will help you to have better communication with your gaffer. At the very least, it is important to have an understanding of the different types of lamps out there and what they can do (Pars, fresnels, open face, beam projectors, ellipsoidal, softlights, skypans, spacelights, cyc strips, flourescents, HMIs, just to name several) There is no reason not to learn as much as you can.

I agree that digital will eventually become more predictable. I also believe that digital will one day have as much or more dynamic range than film. We need to give it time, but we still need to shoot right now. My argument was not meant to say that we should give up on digital, my argument was that being able to see an image on a monitor for the convenience and comfort of the director is not necessarily a reasonable deciding factor when choosing a shooting medium. (unless it has something to do with job security, then all bets are off.)

The best book I have ever come across for this stuff is Set Lighting Technician's Handbook by Harry C. Box. It is the set electrician's bible. Not a lot on do it yourself homemade lighting, but the fundamentals are all there. You will just need practice and find some other electricians to help teach you along the way.

Are you saying that your school has an all HD post workflow or are you saying that the school only teaches HD production and neglects to teach FILM production. If the latter is what you are saying then there is a serious element missing from your education. Learning to shoot film is a major aspect of learning cinematography. The majority of major productions are still shot on film and this is a necessary skill.

I consider film to be actually more predictable than the RED in terms of what you end up getting. An experienced Cinematographer who knows how to use a lightmeter and has tested a film stock has a pretty good idea of how the images will be exposed. This knowledge also allows for being adventurous. The Red on the other hand has more variables. What is your ASA? It depends. There is also less room for error when exposing for the RED because it has less latitude than current color negative film stocks. This is true of any current digital format. (I say "current" because limited dynamic range is not inherent to the medium, it is just the way digital is currently. Digital may one day exceed film in dynamic range, but so far not yet) The image on the monitor from a RED raw image has not been color corrected yet either. Before the use of the video monitor on set, the director had to trust the cinematographer and direct the scene next to the camera with the actors. Times have changed and we have monitors on set and there have been advantages. Unfortunately SOME, not all directors have used these tools as a way to look over the DP's shoulder and micromanage his/her work when their time could be better spent focusing on directing. While trust and collaboration cannot be enforced, I hope that more of it will be encouraged in a healthy way. The format chosen, whether it be film or digital should be chosen in collaboration with the cinematographer.

Of course as you discovered the workflow is not perfect. But I just want to clarify something. The RED is absolutely NOT the same quality and appearance as 35mm film. I won't start a tired old "which is better, film or digital" debate here. All I am saying is that they are different. They are both tools and they produce significantly different results. Things beyond resolution and depth of field. These cameras handle color rendition differently and have different dynamic ranges among other things. These things significantly impact the look of a project. I thought I would bring this up because I just read a very inaccurate article in Wired magazine last month about the RED

Is there a particular reason you require the DP to also be the loader? The other question I had was about the locations. You said "must can get to or live in Maryland AND Miami" How does this work with travel expenses (plane flight, lodging, etc) since few people live in both cities at the same time? I'm only asking these questions because I'm curious.

I have the surveillance style earpiece made by Otto and I like it very much. If you get it, get the ear mold. It's an extra 20 bucks or so, but will keep you from getting an earache. The mold also doesn't block you from hearing sounds nearby that are not in your earpiece.

Rosco also makes LED panels. The ones I worked with were 1x1 ft. Nice soft glow, but not much output. ramis, you need to go to "my controls" and change your screenname to your FULL FIRST AND LAST name. This is a requirement of this forum, as stated when you registered.

When you refer to film stocks, it's important to be specific about them beyond their speed. For example, Kodak currently has at least 4 different stocks that are 500T. Are you shooting on Fuji or Kodak? The reason I ask is that you refer to 400T and 100D. Currently, Fuji is the only company than makes a 400 speed negative stock (Eterna 400T) while 100D is a reversal stock that Kodak makes (I don't think Fuji makes a 100D Reversal) Which film stocks were you referring to? Assuming you are talking about Fujis's Eterna 400T and Kodak's Ektachrome 100D, these two stocks will not match. One is reversal and one is negative. Reversal is significantly more contrasty than negative and reversal is more saturated. These are things that would be more of an issue than grain. However, if your indoor and outdoor shots are separate scenes, you don't necessarily have to have them have an identical look. That said, this all depends on the story and what is appropriate. If you do try to make them match in post, you will have a much easier time adding contrast to the 400 to make it match with the Ektachrome than trying to lower the contrast of the Ektachrome to make it match with the Eterna. I have not tested the Eterna 400T, so I don't know how grainy it is. Based on your statement that you have a very limited budget, I would say that it would not make sense to shoot everything with daylight stock. Putting full blue on tungsten lights knocks them down by about 80% which means you loose about 2 stops of light out of your units. This is not enough light to get a useable exposure for 100D stock. Are your interiors day or night interiors. If they are day interiors with actual sunlight coming in, you could use daylight film, but I would get something faster, like 250D. If you want to use one stock, you could use a fast tungsten stock (400 or 500). When shooting in daylight, simply put on an 85 filter. You will only loose 2/3 of a stop.

Don't forget that prime lenses breath less than zooms (in many cases they don't appear to breath at all)

In the 70s, adult films were shot on 35mm. There was even one shot on 65mm ("Panorama Blue"). This makes sense considering they were shown in movie theaters, so prints were necessary. Obviously home video has changed that entire industry, switching over to video and less focus on plot and camera work, lighting, etc... There is a notion that cinematography doesn't matter in these films, but I respect that the original poster actually cares about the quality of the images, regardless of the genre. It is my opinion that people should strive to achieve quality in there work whatever it may be. While I, personally do not work in the porn industry, I do not think it is fair to thumb my nose at those who do. There is no law that says porn has to look like crap. If you want high quality, you could even consider shooting super 16. Although, I'm not sure how long the takes last (You would have to get a special 1200ft for 33 minutes rather 11minutes per roll with a 400ft). I knew a guy who AC'd on an adult film that was shot on 35mm with a large budget a couple years ago. A Varicam might be something to consider if you have a director that likes slow motion. I did hear somewhere (I think it was actually on this forum) that some porn movies are currently being filmed on the RED. I agree with chad that you should definitely use diffusion filters.

Every school is different. Some are better than others, but this is not necessarily how to look at it. Rather, figure out which school is the best fit. My advice is to figure out what you want to study and what town you want to live in. If you are planning on living and working in Los Angeles, then I would spend a week or so and visit every filmschool in southern california that you might be interested in. There is UCLA, USC, Chapman, AFI, Loyola Marymount. These are the MFA programs and some are also BFA. Brookes Institute of Photography has a Bachelor of Science degree (I'm not sure about Masters degree). There are a couple others that offer different types of programs like the one year programs (NYFA and LA filmschool). Go to all of these and don't just talk to the tour guides. Ask the students about the program. Since they are not being paid by the school, they will give you a more accurate and less biased view of the program Education is a marathon, not a sprint. Don't rush into this. Make sure you give you self enough time to properly evaluate all of your options.

What Brad said was that your screenname needs to be your full first AND FULL LAST name. Unless your FULL last name is "S" then you need to change it. In terms of sunlight, direct sunlight by it's very nature is a hard light that casts hard shadows. If you don't like the way the shadows are falling on the couch from the source, then you need to make changes to the source. There are many different choices you could make. One is to adjust the position of the light so the shadow falls in a different area. Raising the light and tilting down will place the shadow lower. Lowering the light will raise the shadow. You can also soften the source itself which will give you softer shadows, but this can give you a more overcast look (it depends). Bouncing light off the ceiling to fill the room with light lowers the contrast of your lighting because you are filling in the shadows. It sounds like you are not getting the contrast that you want because you are using TOO MUCH fill light. Consider using something like showcard or beadboard and bounce the sunlight coming in back into your scene. If you need a bigger, bounce you could use a larger frime of muslin, ultrabounce, griff, depending on the look you want. If you need more out of the bounce, you could bounce another light into it. There are many other ways to tackle this. It all depends on the look you are going for. If you post some pictures of the setup, I might be able to give you a more detailed response.

It's really tough to figure this one out because the photos are pretty blurry. The last picture looks like a 1K baby solar spot with some type of CTB on it. They all could be 1Ks, but I'm not sure. It looks like the lights are on baby stands. You have some sort of diffusion, looks like 216 or 250, hanging from a C-stand. You might want to consider renting some 4x4 empty frames and snot tape to attach the gel rather than hanging it loose. the frame makes it easier to control. I can't tell you what to remove because the pictures are not clear enough, and even if they were, there could be stuff in play that I am not seeing. Are you the cinematographer of this project, or the gaffer, key grip? If not, I would suggest talking to these people. Please provide some more information so I know what this project is. Is it a student project? What is your role? Why are you trying to recreate a lighting setup verbatim? Are you doing reshoots? What look are trying to achieve look wise? Who did the previous lighting setup? Give as much info as possible. The more info the better. One more thing. Your screenname is supposed to be your first name, a space, and then your Last name. So if your full name is Ry Tiger, then go to "my controls" and change it to "Ry Tiger" instead of ryTiger, otherwise it can be confusing. This is also a requirement of the forum

You should have posted in the Students and First Time Filmmakers. This would have clarified some of the confusion. I also noticed that you posted this same question in another area. Try to avoid this in the future because it makes the forum less organized. I have been harping on this issue lately of categories as well as proper screennames because I think the forum runs better when it is well organized.

All things being equal (by this I mean a zoom lens and a prime lens in the same league of quality) The prime lens is usually sharper. It is also most likely going to be faster. The zoom's widest aperture might be 2.8 whereas a Zeiss Superspeed Prime lens opens up to a T-Stop of 1.3. Zoom lenses also have more glass elements making them more prone to flare. The other issue is that zooms breath more when changing focus. When racking back and forth between two subjects, a zoom lens that breathes a lot will zoom in and out as you shift the focus (particularly noticeable on the wider focal lengths). I have not tested this, but I have been told that prime lenses give better shadow detail in low lit scenes, not just because of their speed, but because of the way they handle contrast. Apparently the added glass elements in zooms effects the lenses ability to see into the shadows. I would love to hear any opinions on this. Many zooms also have a farther minimum focusing distance. The Zeiss 10-100mm has a minimum of 5 feet if I recall. This can be difficult for work in small spaces. Zooms do have an obvious advantage. You can do a zoom in. Both prime lenses and zoom lenses have their place and choosing one or the other depends on the project (creative reasons, technical reasons, budgetary reasons, etc...)

Karan, you need to change your screen name to your full First and Last name. Go to "my controls" and change your screenname. This is a requirement of this forum

You definitely posted in the correct forum. The lighting forum is more for professional inquiries. I do not mean any disrespect by saying that. It's just better to post in Students and First Time Filmmakers when you are starting out because you will get answers more tailored to your needs. You must understand that you are not supposed to plug something larger into a smaller socket, even if you can find and adaptor that will make the physical connection possible. With power and cable, you are always limited to the smallest variable. For example, lets say you have a 200 Amp genny. if you have 4/0 cable which is rated for a maximum of 400 Amps per leg and you have 3 hot legs, this means you have cable that will support up to 1200 Amps total. But you still only have a maximum of 200 Amps because of the generator. Lets switch it around. Lets say you have a 1200 Amp genny and you are connecting your distribution box with 5 wire banded. The cable is rated for 150 (maybe 170, but lets just say 150 for easier math) giving you a total of 450Amps Maximum. Unless you are doing multiple runs out of the generator, the maximum you will get out of that generator is 450 Amps. For your example, a 10K draws 83.3 Amps. This is obviously more than 50 Amps. With a 50 AMP outlet, but you would be limited to a 5K (which draws 41.67 Amps), however a 5K uses a 60Amp plug, so you would need a 60Amp outlet. Before you spend a lot of money, you might want to read up on this stuff (Set Lighting Technicians Handbook by Harry C. Box) and consider renting. Although I'm not sure if you can rent if you are under 18. If you need a lot of light on a tight budget, you might want to consider working with par 64 lights rather than fresnels. a nine light maxibrute has way more output than a fresnel and draws less power (but you would need to diffuse it to mask the multiple sources) Single par units run off of house power or a put put genny and can be used as slashes of light to light up backgrounds of night exteriors. Make sure you study up on all of this so that you can be safe. Since you are 17, there could be liability and insurance issues with all of this so make sure you do all of this with adult supervision and clearance and remember safety first.

Those older posts are still relevant. Most lightmeters are built to last a long time. They're not like digital cameras that become obsolete after a year or two. You don't necessarily have to have the greatest latest. In terms of Sekonic being "THE" meter, there is no such thing as one great, perfect meter, for all people and situations. It is a personal thing. Many top notch cinematographers who I respect greatly use the Sekonics and love them, while there are other equally respected cinematographers who prefer other meters. I personally am not a fan of the Sekonic combo meters, but this is just my personal preference. I like having two separate meters. In case one breaks on set, I have only broken one meter instead of 2. Kind of a negative way of thinking I admit, but I have found two meters that work for me.

The spectra meter referred to here is called the Spectra Pro IVA. It is an incident meter and in my opinion a very good one (has never let me down. I use a Minolta Spotmeter F as my spotmeter. I also love this meter, but they don't make it anymore. This topic has been covered extensively on this forum over the years. Just do a search and you will find tons of info