Andrew Koch

Try using a wheel chair with good tires. You could also rent a camera slider, but that may be out of your budget. Where are you filming this? What kind of surface are you working on?

I had heard that California recently passed a law making tie-ins illegal, even by licensed electricians. What I was told was that even if a licensed electrician does it, the fire marshal would not sign off on it and possibly even shut down the production. I'm not sure if this is accurate. If any of you Local 728 guys know otherwise, please let me know. I think this forum should have a section just for electrical issues like this, separate from lighting in general and just focusing on stuff like Distro, electrical safety, etc... I know in some countries, electrical duties are part of the grips jobs, but for those of us in countries where these duties are part of the electrical department, it might be helpful to have a separate forum. Sorry for going off topic.

It also is important to get the telecine done at a good transfer house with a good colorist. A spirit will be much less grainy than some of the cheaper machines like the old ranks. I would definitely try to transfer it using a Spirit. Even more important is a good colorist. They can work wonders. Another thing, S16 has a lot more depth of field than 35mm. Production design and interesting ways of filling the frame on multiple planes will help to take advantage of this, rather than fight it. If you want to fight the DOF and make it more shallow like 35mm, shoot very wide T-stops (1.4 or 2). The downside is you will not get as good of performance out of the lenses. Shoot on longer lenses farther away. I would definitely say that production design plays a huge role in making S16 (or any medium) effective.

Could you post some pictures of the setup or some frame grabs. I'm curious to see how it looked

How you light this scene depends on what type of scene you are trying to create on stage? Are you doing an interior or an exterior. Night is often light more contrasty than day, so I would recommend keeping your fill light lower or even non existent depending on the look you are going for. Chinese lanterns can work with low cealings if you are having trouble keeping lights out of the shot because you can use them as practicals if the story calls for them. I would try to give you more specifics, but I'm not quite sure what your scene entails. Please be as specific as you can. Is this something you are filming, is this a live show? Does your theater have a catwalk or some sort of overhead railing? One more thing. You still need to change your screen name to your First and Last name. This is NOT optional. This requirement exists to maintain professionalism on this forum. All you need to do is go to "My Controls." Once you do that, look on the left side of the screen. Under personal profile, click "Change Display Name" and then change it to your FULL first and last name.

That is totally true and I apologize for the oversight. I do work in LA and this is the system I am used to. Let me clarify that this distinction between grips and electrics is in reference to the US. I realize that different parts of the world do things differently and I meant no disrespect. There are many ways to get the same result and no system is necessarily better or worse. Raafay, I am not sure what part of the world you are from because it does not say in your profile. Let us know and maybe someone can answer your question as it applies to where you live and work.

One thing that is often misunderstood by students and first time filmmakers is the difference between grips and electrics. The Gaffer is not responsible for the grip department. That is why this post should have been posted under the lighting section of the forum. But to be fair, if you're new to this business, you may have not already known this. This is why I recommend posting these types of questions in the Students and First-Time Filmmakers section. I do not mean to sound patronizing in any way. I have just found that it makes it easier for posters to tailor their responses to your specific needs. Low budget films and students productions often blur the lines between grip and electric due to a lack of personnel. But sometimes I think it is due to a lack of understanding of what these jobs entail. When I am gaffing a low budget film, I will sometimes get a call or email from the producer asking me how many GRIPS I need. If I wanted to be a smartass, I would say I don't need any Grips, but I could sure use some Electrics, but rather than insult the producer, I bite my tongue and then say how many "grips" I need, knowing full well that I will have these people do electric (don't worry, I tell the people I will hire about this in advance). If there are enough people, I believe it is better to keep the departments separate, rather than everyone being swings and having to report to two bosses. Swinging makes people's jobs unclear. When are you the one flagging the light and when are you the one setting it? As an electric, if I am on a very small show and the grips are really struggling because of not enough personnel, I will help them out only if they ask. Which they rarely ever do because they do their job better than me because that is what they do and if I start doing things for them, I am probably stepping on their toes and possibly not doing it right. Departments take pride in being self sufficient and jumping in from another department can be interpreted as you thinking that they are not handling their department. I am not saying this is necessarily the case. Sorry, I just realized I went off topic. Please excuse my hypocrisy.

I would avoid the redrock. It is cheaper, but the cost savings are not worth the pain in the a**, With the redrock, the image is upside down so you have to flip all of your monitors upside down to view the image on set. The Letus adaptor might be a bit cheaper than the mini 35. It doesn't flip the image and you only lose about 1/2 a stop, whereas most other adaptors cut light by a whopping 2 stops, although I'm not sure if the optical quality is as good as the P+S. That said, any of these adaptors will make your image less sharp.

By brand of positive stocks, are you referring to Fuji and Kodak? Which positive stocks are you referring to and what do you mean by the DI Negative? Do you mean the raw files once you have scanned the film? What are you referring to by "brand" of DI negative? Are you referring to the color correction software/hardware, or the scanner, or something else? Also, you need to go to the "My Controls" link toward the top right of the site and change your screenname to you first name, a space, and then your last name, as this is a requirement of this forum

If you get a PC, get Windows XP Professional Edition Service Pack 2 (not 3) instead of Windows Vista. A lot of professional video software such as Avid has problems with Vista. I believe certain versions of Protools also have problems with Vista Also, Wajahat, you need to go to "My Controls" in the upper right link of this page and change your screenname to your FULL first and last name as this is a requirement of this forum

Do you mean like a theater with plays or a movie theater? Either way, why does it matter if it is day or night if you are inside a dark theater? The time of day would not affect the lighting. Or do you mean a scene on stage that takes place at night? Please clarify because I think this could be an interesting discussion. One more thing. you need to go to the "My Controls" link at the top right of this site and change your screenname to your Full first name, a space, and your last name as this is a requirement of this forum.

First, go to the "My Controls" link in the upper righthand portion of the page and change your screen name to your Full first and last name as this is a requirement of this forum. The other issue is that you posted in the 35mm section. 35mm on the forum only refers to 35mm film, not 35mm adaptors. The place to post is under HD under Sony (Prosumer) since you are using the Z1, which is a sony prosumer camera. I am not saying this to pick on you, it's just that you will probably get better responses since readers will have a better reference point when trying to be of assistance. Now, onto the question. Are you planning on renting or buying? The P+S is pretty expensive (I think it is about $2500) and quality glass is even more expensive. A set of zeiss superspeeds are now selling for over $20,000 (they used to be about half that new back in the 80s, but with the RED and all of the adaptors out there, the supply can't meet the demand). Basically, what I'm saying is that you might be better off renting. In your question, you ask which lens should you affix to the adaptor, implying that you only plan to use one lens. Are you planning on shooting the entire film at a fixed focal length? You said you want "soft depth." I'm asssuming you mean shallow depth of field. In "Elephant" the DOF is very shallow most of the time. One major factor is that the camera focuses to the foreground actors who appear to be pretty close to the camera, although it's been a while and I can't remember if the lenses were long or medium. Close focus often yields pretty shallow DOF. The film also appears to be shot on a pretty wide iris (possibly completely open, but don't quote me on this). So consider using lenses that are longer in focal length, such as 85mm or 135mm, and lenses that are fast, such as the zeiss superspeeds which open up to T1.3 You can rent a set of 5 (18mm, 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm) for about $300 a day, although I prefer to stop down to a 2 or 2.8 when I can. The lenses perform better stopped down a bit. Ultra prime lenses are really great, but much more expensive. You can still get shallow depth of field on medium lenses if you subject is close to the camera and you shoot at a wide stop. Hope this helps

could you please clarify whether the Zeiss T1.3 was a superspeed or a masterprime since there is such a massive difference?

With a budget of only 6000, why would you want to go to through the added expense of printing something when you are going to telecine it anyway? Couldn't you simply increase the saturation and contrast in telecine? You can get more saturation and richer blacks if you overexpose the film about 2/3 of a stop and bring it down. You might want to consider shooting these scenes on the Fuji Vivid stock which is high contrast, high saturation, or maybe even reversal film. Are you shooting on 35mm or 16mm? If you do decide to print something on 35mm, the premier stock is very snappy, but more expensive. I'm not even sure if it is available in 16mm. A couple of years ago, when I was getting 16mm workprints as a student, the lab told me there was only one color print stock available for 16mm. I can't remember the name of that stock. Those who know this better, please correct me if I'm wrong. Unless you have an established relationship with your lab, labs tend to print student films hot and flat, so even if you go this way, you would most likely have to tweak the contrast in telecine anyway.

This is a subjective thing. The issue is what look are you going for? 7222 Double-X is extremely grainy and 7231 Plus-X is less grainy, but still quite grainy in S16. If you want a grainy look, one of these might be suitable for your purposes. The other issue is that there is no remjet backing as mentioned before. These stocks have much less dynamic range than the modern color stocks. You get about 6 stops total and then it's pretty much gone. The idea of overexposing and printing down does not apply to these stocks. You need to nail your exposures. The other issue is the speed. Plus-X is 64t/80D and Double-X is 200T/250D. So you are not going to be able to shoot in as low of light as something like the 7218. All of these things can be considered disadvantages and for certain projects they would be. But a lot of these "disadvantages" could give you just the look you are after. I personally love the look of Plus-X. It has that old movie look and I love the halation. You are not going to get the same feel from desaturating color stock. Whats great about shooting on black and white for day exteriors is that you can make use of black and white filters. (Ex: The red 25, to make the faces brighter and the sky darker. Laszlo Kovacs did this brilliantly in "Paper Moon" using Double-X. Of course he was shooting on 35mm so he didn't have the graininess issue) To be fair, you can achieve similar effects with color stock in post by messing with the different color channels, but this can create noise so make sure you test this out. If any of you guys or gals have done something like this, please let me know how it worked for you as I have only done this with still photography.

What does "S" mean? Also, you quoted me, but that's not exactly what I wrote. I made it very clear that setting exposure by eye to determine ISO was not necessarily the most accurate way to go, but the way I was quoted implies otherwise. However, I will agree with the change that you made about using a monitor, provided that it is properly calibrated. I would always use the monitor over the crappy viewfinder, as long as it is available (I wasn't sure if he had a monitor because he posted under students and first time filmmakers)

Have you had the collimation checked? If the lens is not properly collimated for your camera, your images will not be as sharp. This is more noticeable using wider lenses and less noticeable on longer lenses. If this is off, it could be sharp in the eyepiece, but soft on the film. Stopping down the lens also helps make this problem less noticeable. Take the camera to a rental house and ask them if they wouldn't mind checking it for you.

Fuji has a stock called Vivid. It's a Tungsten stock, 160 ISO. It is higher saturation and higher contrast than most negative stocks. I wouldn't recommend overexposing 4 stops. You will loose too much highlight detail, and if you are doing telecine, this can add quite a bit of noise. It will also be harder to print down if you are making a print because you will need to use very high printer lights, in some cases the maximum available in the hazeltine. There is a certain limit to how far down a basic print can go. 2/3 to a stop should be sufficient to getting a saturated image. High contrast images can help to make an image seem more saturated. You can help this with your lighting. One of the biggest things that will help you get saturated colors is production design. Fill the frame with darker colors, deep reds, deep blues, etc... rather than pastel colors. Complementary colors also help, such as someone wearing a yellow shirt against a blue wall. Use sharp lenses with good coatings. Don't shoot with them wide open. You will usually get better optical performance stopped down about 2 stops from wide open. If the lens opens to a T2, shooting around 4 or 5.6 It will help with getting more punch out of your image. Take great care in preventing flares, because these will lower your contrast and make the image less contrasty and saturated.

Adding an ND 0.3 does not change the depth of field. Opening up a stop to compensate for the ND 0.3 will make the depth of field more shallow. I think this is what Adrian meant, but I just wanted to make sure that was clarified.

I would recommend getting a 35mm SLR film camera (not digital) and shoot black and white reversal film (AKA "Slide Film). Get a lightmeter and learn how to use it with your camera. Write down all of your exposure info when you take each shot (F-Stop, Lens, Shutter Speed, distance to subject, contrast ratio, etc...) Get these developed and view them in a slide projector (I'm sure you could use one at school). This will help you get better at exposure, because B&W Slide film has very little room for error, so mistakes will be obvious and you will learn from them. If you have a zoom lens, take a picture of a person on a wide lens with the camera close enough to make it a close up. Zoom in half way and back the camera up until have the same shot size as before. Zoom all the way in and back the camera further until you have the same shot size again. All three photos will have the same shot sizes but you will see how different focal lengths either compress space or expand it. Go to the "Books" Link at the top of the page and check out some of the books on there. I think a good starting point might be Cinematography by Kris Malkiewicz and M. David Mullen, ASC. Blaine Brown's Cinematography book is pretty good too. Try to watch a lot of movies, from all different countries and eras. One of my pet peeves with SOME of the young filmmakers out there is that their knowledge of movies only dates back 20, maybe thirty years. Look at films from all the way back as well as the new stuff. If I were a teacher, I would give out this homework assignment early on. Pick 3 cinematographers whose work you admire. One from the earlier days (Like the 40s or earlier), One from the 60s and 70s, and one from the last 30 years or so. Find out what they shot. Describe what you like about the cinematography in these movies. Ask lots of questions. Also, be resourceful in finding answers. You're already on the right track by posting on this forum, just make sure you go to "my controls" up top and change your screenname to your First and Last name.

First thing, Go to "My Controls" toward the top right of the web page and change your screenname to your First name, a space and then your last name. This is a requirement of this forum and you need to change it so you don't get banned. I have a proposed test for you that might work for your situation. If you don't have a waveform monitor, get an 18% greycard and fill the frame with it under flat light that is the color of light you will be shooting with that you want to appear as white light (whether it be daylight, tungsten, florescent, etc.) White balance to that greycard with auto iris. Once you are white balanced, turn back to manual iris. The next step worked "okay" with the HVX200, I'm not sure if it is the same for the DVX100. Set your Zebras to 50%. Close down your iris until there are no zebras then gradually open the iris until it just begins to zebra. Take a reading of the card with your meter. Change the ISO of your meter until it matches the camera's ISO. This is a ballpark figure and by now means a subsitute for a waveform monitor. I just thought of another way that might be more accurate, but will take quite a bit of time and energy. Shoot an 18% Greycard and white balance the same way I just described. Set the Iris until card appears properly exposed to your eye on the viewfinder. This is not necessarily the actual "correct" exposure for the card since there are so many variables. This is just the starting point for the test. Write down the f-stop that appears on the camera at this point. Take a meter reading and change the iso until the stop on your meter matches the stop on the camera. Write this ISO down. For demontration purposes, lets pretend the ISO is 320. Record this to tape for about 10 seconds. Next, open the iris by 1/3 of a stop. Notate this (put some kind of note like "plus 1/3" in the corner of the frame for easy identification, but keep any text away from the majority of the frame or the center.) Record this. Open up the iris another 1/3 and have something in the frame say "plus 2/3". Record this. Keep increasing in thirds until you reach 2 stops over your original exposure. (This might be overkill, but what the heck, try it.) Go back to your original exposure and shoot it again. No do the same thing in reverse. Close down your iris in 3rds untll you reach 2 stops under. Now that you have all of this on tape. Transfer the footage to a non-linear editing program that has waveform monitors built in. Even the Xpress versions of Avid have it as well as final cut pro when doing color correction. I believe Adobe Premiere has it as well. If you can't find a program with a waveform monitor, then this test won't help you. If you do, observe the waveforms of each exposure. Find the one that is closest to 50 IRE (I have heard some place middle grey at 40 or 45, so ask around and determine which one is best and go with that, but for the sake of this post, lets just say 50 IRE). If the Waveform monitor reads 50IRE on your original first exposure, then use your original ISO off the meter (our example of 320). If the waveform reads at 50IRE when you recorded 1/3 of a stop over original, decrease your ISO by a third (ex: 320 becomes 250. 320 becomes 200 if 2/3 over, and so on.) If your waveform reads 50 IRE when you are 1/3 under original exposure, increase your ISO by a third (320 becomes 400. If 2/3 under then 320 becomes 500, and so on). These increments will help to overcome the lack of accuracy from exposing by eye off of an LCD. This method would be a pain in the a** to do, but at least it would help you find a ballpark rating for your camera, at least under the lighting setting you will use. To be honest, I'm not even sure it is the greatest idea, but it's just a thought. A simpler method would be to purchase DV Rack, which has a software based waveform monitor that you can use live on set if you have a laptop and a firewire cable. At the very least, having a rough ISO for your camera will allow you to bring your meter to a scout. The most you would be off by would probably be a stop. Don't get me wrong, a stop is significant, so I would recommend erring on the side of a bit more light than you think you will need, and if it is too much, drop some scrims in the light. Much easier than having lights that are not strong enough and having to build everything up.

First thing. Go to "My Controls" and change your screenname to your First name, a space, and then your last name. This is a requirement of this forum. Allen already told you about this in a previous post. Please do so before you make any more posts. Check out the "books" link in the upper right area of this website. There are some great recommendations on that page. I personally like Cinematography by Kris Malkiewicz and M. David Mullen, ASC (I would also try to read as many of Mr. Mullen's posts on here as you can. He is very knowledgeable and an incredibly talented cinematographer. Watch Northfork) The Negative, by Ansel Adams. Very good book on understanding exposure. Reflections by Benjamin Bergery and Film Lighting by Kris Malkiewicz are great books for learning different lighting styles and techniques. As a Cinematographer, I believe you should have an understanding of the departments you will be working with. To understand the electric department, run by the Gaffer, I recommend Set Lighting Technicians Handbook by Harry C. Box. This book will really help with the technical aspect of lighting and will help you to work more safely on set. To help understand the Grip Department, I recommend The Grip Book by Michael Uva For the camera department, I recommend The Camera Assistant by Douglas Hart There are a lot of other great books that I have left out, but I almost forgot a big one, The ASC Manual.

J. Lamar King is absolutely right about using a Shock Block. I don't mean to repeat the same thing from another poster, but it is absolutely critical that you use an effective GFCI (Shockblock) in this situation, even if the light doesn't go in the water. You would definitely need one for the goal post scenario that you described. What effect are you trying to achieve with your lighting. Lighting from above would look quite different from an underwater light (such as a Sea Par). Are you trying to light the surrounding areas or the pool, or do you want it to look like the light is emanating from the pool. Is the camera underwater?

I stumbled across wikipedia's page about film. I haven't read the whole thing, but I found something that was a bit troubling. Under the section "Future State" toward the bottom of the article, it says this: "The maximum resolutions that film currently offers are 2485×2970 or 1420×3390, UHD, a future digital video format, will offer a massive resolution of 7680×4320, surpassing all current film resolutions. The only viable competitor to these new innovations is IMAX which can play film content at an extreme 10000×7000 resolution." This is clearly a strange and inaccurate statement. How did the author come up with these figures? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film If someone knows how to let wikipedia know that there is an error in one of there articles, please let me know how to do so.

I think this look could be achieved through a combination of production design, lighting, and post work. I find that production designers don't always get the credit they deserve. The blood can be almost black looking by using very dark red syrup. That said, the images are rather contrasty and low in saturation. Bleach bypassing the negative can increase your contrast and lwer your saturation. You could also try pushing the film to make the highlights blow. But I'm not exactly sure what the cinematographer did in the video so I can't say. You also need to change your screenname. Go to "my controls" and change it to your first and last name as this is a requirement of the forum