Matthew McDermott

Curses! Foiled by video. I knew it; they must have people inside FedEx.

It's amazing how many lives this thread has had... In a class I taught last semester we set up a side by side test of the DVX v. 16mm. Most of the students had not shot color neg. before (only BW reversal), but most had some experience with the DVX. I just wanted to demonstrate the differences between the two in a controlled studio setting. We shot 7277 so that the exposures would be close to the same stop. We then screened them back to back. The DVX went first and everyone was quite impressed. As they should be, the DVX looks very good for what it is. Then we screened the 16mm and everyone's opinion changed. The 16mm was clearly superior in all the ways that people have mentioned: color was better, depth of field was less and judged to be a good thing, highlights were less harsh with more detail, overall the image was somehow rounder, more organic feeling while at the same time appearing to be sharper in terms of resolution. For economic reasons most of them are choosing to shoot with the DVX on their personal projects, but none denies that 16mm looks better. We also did the experiment outside in less controllable circumstances, but the film somehow disappeared between the school and the lab so we never saw the results...

Me: I saw Alexander last night. Friend: Didn't Oliver Stone direct that? Me: Yeah. Friend: I heard that's his worst film since his last one. Me: Yup. Prieto's work is about the only redeeming thing in the film.

I'm one of those 4 people that think it's perfectly acceptable to call your project a film regardless of orginination medium. The problem we're arguing about has more to do with the English language than filmmaking. This may be obvious, but the word "film" is used to refer to two different things: 1) the light-sensitive substance onto which an image is recorded, and 2) the sequence of images that have been edited together to tell a story. For the second definiton to be true it does not matter if the origination medium is photochemical or magnetic. No one would claim that the images recorded onto video tape are film--the substances are obviously different--but it is perfectly logical to say that the sequence of video images that you have put together to tell a story is a film. Lighting for video I find to be simply different than lighting for film. The more limited contrast range of the medium forces you into artistic choices that you would not neccesarily be forced into if the orgination medium was film. The irony of course being that the entire time you're lighting video, you're generally trying to make it look less like video and more like film. In the end interesting lighting is interesting lighting, and a good story is a good story, regardless of how the images were created.

Does anyone out there know what format HBO's "The Wire" is shot on? I've done some searching on the web for information but have come up short on the technical aspects. Any help is appreciated. thanks in advance

I'm not sure if the The Office verson_US is still on, but when I first heard about the possibility, the first words out of my mouth were, "god help us." I can't imagine a good reason for bringing the show to the US when it already runs on BBC America, is widely available on DVD and is damn near perfect as it is. I'm really worried that any revisions for the US market are just going to dumb the show down--not that it's exactly high-brow as it is--but it is subtle in comparison to most US programming. I hope Gervais and Merchant got enough money so that their souls will be sufficiently calmed when the new version tarnishes the old.

You can't shift the WB by degrees but there are enough presets, plus auto that it's never been an issue for me. If I'm just out shooting stills I leave it on auto WB and make any finer adjustments in Photoshop. If I'm using it on set, I set it to whatever lights I'm using.

D-SLRs have a tendency to blow the highlights like video--though not nearly as badly. I often use a Nikon D70 for stills of my lighting set-ups so that I have something to go back to if I've got to recreate a scene. It's also a good tool for learning to manually meter in conjunction with your handheld meter, keeping in mind that the latitude is different than both film and video. You can immediately see the results of where you've set the exposure and can quickly learn where you went wrong or right. It obviously doesn't take into account post-processing of video (or film) or what can be accomplished with optical printing of film. An image that is blown on your DSLR might be perfectly acceptable or salvagable on film--the sensor is even more sensitive in regards to correct exposure than reversal film.

If it's a narrative situation I almost always try to light the location first and not neccesarily the actors, as such. I try to create an interesting space in which to stage the action. I figure out where the light should naturally be coming from, the windows, practicals, whatever, and work from there. Sometimes that means going with that and sometimes forgetting it entirely. If the location looks right then the action taking place in that will look right as well. That being said, I always have some lights available to bring in to supplement if a particular angle isn't working within the overall plan. This method works for my style but certainly isn't the only way to work. If it's an interview I most always start with the key and build from there. However if that interview is a large area that has to be lit (someone's studio, for example...) I'll make sure the area is lit first and then add lights to separate the subject from the surroundings.

When you turn off the DVX notice that the tally light doesn't immediately go off. (The red "camera" light doesn't turn off right away.) If you remove the battery before this light goes off you will create a timecode break. The timecode will revert to the last point at which you "correctly" removed the battery. Just make sure this light goes off before removing that battery and you'll be fine. Unfortunately, as this isn't mentioned in the manual, it took a bit of trial and error to figure out this one.

Without a work permit you might be able to find work on shorts or school projects that wouldn't be paying you or willing to pay you under the table--which is fine for gaining experience. However to work any on production with proper pay and the legal paperwork to accompany that it is unlikely that you'd be able to find anything without first being legal. And even if you found someone that was willing to hire you, you'd have to leave the UK while your case was being reviewed to get a work permit.

The polarizer and french flag do different things. The polarizer is effecting the light that actually enters the lens, while the french flag is preventing light from striking the filter or lens and causing haze or flare on the image. What is lacking from most matteboxes designed for DV cameras is a sidewing system. Often times it's useful to be able to control stray light entering from the side of the frame as well as the top. I've got a clip on flag on an arm to help here but sidewings would be nice. If you're buying new, I think Chrosziel's got a new one designed for the DVX that has them.

Getting into the UK as a tourist is a snap. You'll be allowed to stay for six months without a problem. It's getting rid of the stamp in your passport that says "employment and recourse to public funds prohibited" that's the tough part. And as Audris said, good luck with Harry Potter...

Landon, the reality of immigrating to the US is that it is quite hard. We've got some of the most stringent visa requirements of anywhere in the world, doubly so in recent years. Have you seen the way people are grilled at the border even when all their paperwork is in order? If we were in some other industry where there are actual staff positions, then it wouldn't be so difficult. If a company wants you to hire you then arranging the proper paperwork is usually just a matter of time. Since most of us are freelancers, with no one to sponsor us, it is very difficult. And emigrating to the UK is equally hard, especially for a US citizen. Have you actually looked into doing this? Without a job lined up, it is next to impossible to do this legally. And what work do you expect to do illegally? You'll be lucky to be serving drinks in Hoxton Square with all those out of work film people that Phil mentioned. There are a few routes to emigrate without definite work and unless you're marrying someone with UK citizenship, have won an Academy Award, or plan on bringing in over £500,000, your primary route is Skilled Migrant program. (That's not the exact name...) You're evaluated on a points system based on your educational experience, past earnings, and so on. If you reach a certain points total you are given an entry visa and a certain amount of time to establish yourself. Unless you've got a graduate level degree and have been steadily working and earning a good deal of money, you won't make the points total. Good luck though. Though this is a cinematography forum...do you really think that we'll be attacked if Kerry's elected over Bush? My God, do you watch television?

My favorite example of this is a night exterior section where 90% of the conversation takes place as the characters walk out of a building and through a completely black section of the frame, only at the end to emerge into the light. What courage and confidence it takes, both in the script and the frame, to actually do that.

What's the situation exactly? You're shooting stills, right? Without knowing what lights you'll be under, it's difficult to answer. You may not want to put anything in front of the lens so as to avoid the loss of film speed and correct for any color shifts at the printing/scaning stage. Besides, depending on what type of show it is and what the specific stage lighting is, the color shift may have an interesting look. In most clubs you're fighting for every footcandle, so anything in front of the lens isn't helping that much. What stock are you using?

If you're going to start a Zeiss versus _something war in still photography lenses, I'll throw the Leica 35/2 Summicron-M (the fourth generation pre-Aspherical one) into the fight. Any of the Leica glass in the past couple of years is pretty hard to beat. Although if they made cine lenses they'd be twice as expensive as everything else...

I just went through this. The 9" kino's work well to simulate the interior car light. We ended up dimming them slightly and flagging off the corners of them as at only a foot or so away from the actors they are a bit too bright to be believable as actual car lighting. One in front like there's a reading light and one 3/4 behind to provide a bit of back lighting and separation. We were in a parking lot so we could stage the scene under a street lamp to provide exterior fill. Shot with the Varicam we were at maybe a 2.8 (can't remember exactly) with 0db gain and it looks great. Try to get the kit with the dual ballast, we had separate ballasts and though not difficult to do, was an extra thing to worry about--triggering both lights in time as the car door opened. After reading how they lit the car interiors in Collateral, all I can see is slightly blue-green cell phone panels everywhere. Thought it looked great--and a really creative solution to car interiors--but now that I know I wish I wasn't behind the curtain so to speak.

I believe that Soderburgh has used a pseudonym and taken DP credit on a number of his films. I'd love to give it go--DP and directing--but would be worried that it'd be too much to think about without some seriously competant and committed assistants. At which point you have to ask yourself, why bother taking both credits other than egotism?

I realize we're kicking a dead horse on this thread, but since it's been revived... Was it nepotism that this film got made? Or that they shot on 35mm v. the miniDV or other smaller formats that they originally talked about? Of course it was. When your father's FFC you can probably get just about anything made you want. Well maybe not anything but it doesn't hurt at all. But what's so shocking about this? We all work in an industry where connections are just as important if not more important than any level of talent. From the biggest feature to the smallest industrial or documentary about the guy who runs the corner bodega, it's all about who you know. Why that shocks anyone is beyond me. Does this make Lost in Translation a bad film? Or have any bearing whatsoever on Coppola's actual work as a director? No. We've all heard the stories about how little she directed on the set--which may or may not be true. But she did cast the right people, and that's probably more important than how you work with them during production. Slight exaggeration... but if you get the right people for the right part, the film pretty much makes itself. She wrote Bill's part with him specifically in mind. Jim Jarmusch writes with specific actors in mind all the time, but do people criticize him for be a lazy director? Maybe they do, but that's not the point. The point is--and I'm nearly certain I'm going to start a war in this 99% male forum--the point is that I don't think Ms. Coppola would be receiving nearly as much criticism if she was a man. If we didn't like the film we'd all just let the film go by and say, "ah, mediocre meandering rubbish." But since she's a woman, she's held to a much higher standard within this industry. And before we get all righteous about Scarlet Johanssen's ass as the opening shot of the film. Let's remember that the director was also a woman. What that has to do with the objectification of the human body I don't know, but it's certainly a good bit of inversion. We let literally hundreds of pointless, gratuitous scenes of female nudity go by every year, but this one get's talked about to the point of exhaustion. And I quite like female nudity... I personally love the film. Is it a masterpiece of character study, method acting, plot development...or anything? No. But it was markedly more satisfying for me to watch, ambiguities and all, than 99% of the schlock that passes through my local cinema's projector.

If I'm shooting DV I use the Panasonic master quality tapes. Sony has those new tapes which promise less drop-outs but I've never experienced problems with drop-outs that were caused by the tape itself (always the heads...). Not to mention that they are more than twice as expensive, which if you're on the typical DV documentary budget is something to worry about. Tape is pretty much tape and this may sound absurd but I like the cases on the high end Panasonic cases better than other brands. That's pretty much the only reason I use them.

Very much true. I can't remember who said it here but, what can do you expect in an entire camera that costs less than a decent lens...? I'm not expecting the world for nothing. I just find it interesting what people get excited about. It seems like video camera manufacturers, on the whole, seem to care little about ergonomics and what filmmakers actually want. I don't expect uncompressed, Super35-sized CCDs and interchangable Zeiss lenses on a camera anywear near this price range--or eight times this price range--but some ergonomic improvement might be nice. How about usable zoom controls, actual manual focus with some level of drag to it, dump the near-useless handstrap and replace it with something upfront (think A-Minima handstrap...), would lens markings be too much to ask? This isn't a criticism of Sony specifically, but of all of the "sausage-cams". Since these types of cameras often get more often employed in professional or semi-professional documentary situations than for family home videos, it shocks me that manufacturers seem to design the controls more for mom, dad and the baby than professional users.

Though I'm slightly older than you (30) I've run into age issues a couple of times. The first was when I began working with a particular gaffer who has definitely more experience than I do. He's about ten years older than me and at first I thought that he thought I was just some non-technical, inexperienced hack--he's super technical, can quote any bit of technical data you like, if you think you might want it built it's already done. After working with him a few times I discovered that what I thought was disbelief of my abilities was really admiration for what I was doing. The second was more recently on a documentary shoot that I DP'd. There's one short studio section that was done at a university TV station. I always thought the two older guys that ran the studio were looking at me like I was insane and talking too quickly. Maybe that was less related to age than that these guys were vaguely aging hippy types on some work slow vibe and that's about 180 degrees away from me. If you present yourself like you know what you want, have confidence in yourself and at the same time aren't afraid to ask for advice if you need it I'm sure you'll be fine. Professionalism is way more important than age.

Where do you live? If you're anywhere near a rental house why shell out the money to own a 16mm camera if you can easily rent--or anything more than DV for that matter? That is unless you've got a couple grand burning a hole in your pocket... I suppose if everything you're doing is on spec and you figure you can amortize the cost over several self-financed productions it might make sense. However if other people are paying, you should probably be charging for rental on your own equipment or somehow incorporating those costs into your fee structure anyway, the client doesn't save all that much money.

No interchangable lenses, same fiddly controls and (most likely) crappy viewfinder, small CCDs and resultantly infinite depth of field. Yawn...