Matthew W. Phillips

I agree Brian. However, the original issue here was that DPs would not accept the same working condition. The whole point is they feel they have an intrinsic right to protect the image even through the grade and should also be paid for it. My whole original point is that they shouldnt feel the need to be involved unless it is asked of them or unless they want to provide it for gratis.

I see. I remember you too...apparently you believe that dissenting from the group opinion means I have no right to be here. I paid for that yellow label like you did, my friend. That means I like to come here and I will continue to as long as I have access. I am sorry if you disapprove. Not everyone has the same experiences or has to agree on everything.

Hey, who needs lav mics when the DP can use a fourth lens in his kit, correct?

No David, I am not upset that he wanted a wide shot. I am upset that he wanted a wide shot and there was no possible way to get good audio in that situation without proper equipment. And I can see that arguing with you is pointless because of what website I am at and who I am talking to. And your subtle implication that i lack skill because I did not get the audio well in that shot is a further low shot of the caliber that I expect of this site whenever someone brings up anecdotal situations where a DP is being accused. Not to patronize you, David, but I didnt think you of all people would resort to those types of subtle jabs to defend a DP you never even met. Edit: On a possibly related note, I notice this site has been...well...let me just say I hear crickets these days.

The ONLY reason I can see is if they are shooting a high ratio. Since raw stock is used for the throw away as well as the kept footage, the feet used would be less for filmout. Sadly, this doesnt save much since filmouts are far more expensive per foot than neg stock and processing.

Well, you were not on those sets so you can hardly comment on whether the "camera department" (which is one guy who is the DP) had anything to do with it or not. Truth is, more times than not, the DP would cry the loudest and get the funding. It was ultimately the Producer's call (who was 99% of the time the Director also) but it doesn't change that the DPs I have worked around had little regard for the audio needs. I even recall one production where I pleaded with the Director to let me get in a bit closer (I didnt want to boom 4 feet from the talent) and the DP complained because he wanted a super wide shot with dialog and guess who got their way? And no, the Director also refused adding lavs to the budget. His mentality was "if you dont bring it, we dont use it." Interesting enough, this wasnt the rule for the DP.

Landon is correct. You really miss the point of my financial situation.

Looking good! I miss Super 8 sometimes...the shaky footage, the retro look. But then I realize it is expensive and not very efficient to shoot a feature on and it makes me sad.

I see what you mean about the actors...fair enough. But I strongly disagree about the sound. Audio tools are as vast and have the same ability to change the recording as any visual. Once you start EQ'ing, bass boost, treble cut, etc you can have a piece of audio that the Op cannot recognize as his/hers.

David, i never meant to imply that my experience was that of everyone. I was only responding to Stuart's assertion that I have an axe to grind. You are used to working in the upper end of film making (whether you consider it upper end is a different matter) but relative to the indie scene here in Northern Cal, you ARE on the upper end. The attitude is no doubt different as the professionalism plays a larger role, the reputation as well. I do not find it odd at all that you are not paid to be there. Unless there is a requirement to be there then why should you be paid if it is your choice? And if DPs prefer to be there because they feel they need to protect the sanctity of their work then that is their decision, not the productions. I just find the DP mentality incredibly odd when compared to other members of cast and crew. I mean, actors get scenes cut all of the time and, regardless of how they feel about what is remaining, they have to deal with it. As a sound operator, I have NEVER been asked or even permitted to go into the studio for the mixdown. Maybe where you are at, this happens. But one can only speak of their own experience. A DP is understood to be the person for whom is responsible for the visual portion of the film during principle photography, I always thought. I never realized it was their problem or duty to see the film through and "protect the image" until opening night?!

What does my past experience have anything to do with this conversation? I have, indeed, dealt with these issues as both a filmmaker on my own projects and as a department head (Production Sound Mixer) on others productions. I do NOT have anything against crew...I have been crew. But, as crew, I have always placed the needs of the production over mine. It has caused frustration since the visual portion of the film ALWAYS gets more recognition than the audio and the DPs always expect more and more while I am lucky to even get a fair wage. I am silent because I do this for the love of it, mostly. DPs expect full rate, lights of choice, lens kit rental, dolly, crane, fancy rigs. If I so much as ask for a decent blimp kit, I am told "don't you own that? Cant you just bring one?" The double standards in film (indie level) are incredible. I cannot help but smile every time a "filmmaker" has a crap product that looks pretty in Charlie Chaplin mode but they are upset at the bad audio. If there is an axe to grind, it is with the DP attitude as both filmmaker and crew and not crew in general. Most other positions have been fantastic to work with on both sides on the Director's Chair. No, I didn't know it because it isn't that way here. I do not feel the need to educate myself on world filmmaking laws when I am a regional filmmaker with limited coverage so far. Nonetheless, what Landon says is correct...contracts can be drawn up to circumvent such usurping of the filmmaker's vision. Non-compliance with contract means you don't get hired.

With all due respect, it gets a little old hearing DPs want to have their cake and eat it too. When it comes to taking a pay cut or working off points, DPs want to take the labor road of "you wouldn't ask your barber to do that." But when it comes to creativity, you want to be a "collaborator." Fact is, you are not a collaborator in the true sense. Collaboration is like a partnership and partners all work together for the common good of the project. A collaborator isnt going to demand their full rate at the expense of the whole production. A collaborator isnt going to try to push the visual agenda at the expense of the audio department. DPs, not all, but many, are just like every other member of the crew who is self serving and is only looking out for themselves and NOT the production. That is NOT collaboration.

You DESERVE to get paid for what was agreed upon. You DESERVE legal and safe working conditions. You do NOT DESERVE anything other than that. You come in, do your work, and move on with life. It isn't your project and you were compensated in a way in which you were agreed to. If you desire to have a say in things then the burden is ON YOU to have this written into your contract prior to the shoot. Good luck getting any work that way though.

I took your advice and purchased CineGrain last night for 16mm. I fell in love with the archival grain. Thank you so much for this tip! Here is a grab with my previous grading style but with the CineGrain 16mm archival grain applied. This is a grab from footage I took of my daughter.

No offense but, compared to what?

Hah, I actually toned that down in grading. My wife is irish/german and she got a bad sunburn the day before.

I am sorry, Tyler, if I came across as rude. It was not my intention and I realize that post came off a bit harsh. All things considered, you did a fantastic job. It is amazing how people expect miracles when we work for them. i could tell you similar horror stories of when I was an audio guy and the director expected perfect sound but didnt want to turn off the ice machine. I so wanted to be credited as "D.B. Fader" on that production, let me tell you.

Thanks, Landon, for your input. I have tried things like Magic Bullet in the past and I could never get them to look even remotely like any film I have ever shot. I often wonder if people who make those kinds of programs have ever even shot film? Not to denigrate those that use them, I just cannot figure it out to look how I want. As an example, this is a grab of actual 16mm film that I shot a few years ago and had pro graded...I like this look and wish to obtain a similar aesthetic for my feature. More sharpness would be nice, admittedly, but I was using one of those old CP16R Zoom lenses like David mentioned above.

Good work, Tyler. I certainly see what you are going for. I really like your grain structure and the dust particles and whatnot...would like to mimic that aspect. With all due respect, I feel like you blew out your highlights a bit in certain places and your contrast is a bit higher than I prefer. But there is no denying that it has a filmic quality.

Ok, Landon, I took your advice and saturated it a bit more and made the grain more low-key. Tyler...thanks for chiming in. I am going for the 16mm aesthetic for this project so 35mm rules need not apply. My sensor is the APS-C which isnt full frame anyway so it seems more fitting to mimic a format closer in size to my sensor. I would love to do 10bit raw but the 8bit files are killing my storage space as it is since I edit uncompressed. Any other help with obtaining the 16mm look after this grab or is it more stylistic differences at this point?

Ok David, I gave a shot at adding more sharpness (my camera's sharpness was low which is why it was like that...it wasnt an added effect.) I also graded it to include more richness in the blacks but still trying to preserve highlight quality. Landon, regarding your comment, I come from a Super 8 background (that was my first love and I have shot far more of that then 16mm) so it is quite possible my grain is off for the 16mm look. I didn't see your comment until I came here to post this updated grab so don't think I ignored your advice ;) I will work on finding the happy medium with the grain. In my head though, I love the look of some sort of grain and do not wish to abandon it completely.

Mistake...it was Kowa prime, not Lomo.

David, i did use a reference frame...I shot on CP16R with the Lomo Prime (green shift.) You are correct that the native footage is sharper but this look is, more or less, intentional. I did not apply a filter to it, per se, just did some intense grading in Resolve and then added film grain in Premiere Pro. Do you feel that the image is actually degraded from the source Sony footage you see from that camera?

I have been on serious hiatus from this site...a few years, I believe. After my first feature fell apart two years ago due to budget because I was hopelessly trying to shoot it on 16mm, I am back this year to shoot my first feature. Sadly, it will not be on celluloid. I purchased an unlikely cheap digital package that I find surprising comfort with...the Sony a6000 with two lens kit. I am focusing most of my budget on talent and great audio. I have also spent most of my hiatus learning Davinci Resolve (which makes a HUGE difference) Anyhow, I still love the 16mm aesthetic despite being too poor for it. I have been trying to get as close as I can while keeping my camera package and not having to hire out a pro grader. Attached is a still of my wife that I took with some colorful friends. Is this acceptable quality to replace 16mm or are there any pointers in graded and/or lighting that any of you can give? Thanks. Matthew

Fair enough...but just curious...would you pay $265/day for him?