Stas Tagios

American Cinematographer has an online article about David Boyd's fantastic cinematography for "Firefly": http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb03/firefly/index.html

I was afraid of that. Are you shooting the whole film at 0db gain and 1/48th shutter to minimize noise and the smeary video look of a slower (1/24th) shutter? I plan to shoot at 1/24th shutter and up to 6db gain if necessary to eke out an image in low-light situations, and am hoping that will be enough to produce an acceptable image, as many of the situations I'll be shooting will not allow for any supplementary lighting, except perhaps an on-camera lite panel. I may also check out the Canon XH-A1, which I've read produces beautiful images, is more light-sensitive, and the 24F mode of which pretty closely resembles actual 24P footage, albeit at a slightly lesser resolution than the camera's interlaced mode. Thanks so much for your quick reply! Good shooting, Stas

Hi Marcel, just wondering if you'd started shooting with the V1 yet, and if so, if you have the time to post some more thoughts on the camera's imagery. I'm about to start a three-week documentary shoot using the camera and unfortunately, will not have time to test it beforehand, so I'm relying on reviews and net forums to glean any info I can about how the camera performs. Have you used it in low-light/available light situations? I've read that the V1 is rated even slower than the z1 and that its gain reduces resolution, which worries me, since my shoot will primarily be shot with available light, and much of it will be evening interiors. Thanks for any advice you can provide, Stas

DV magazine tested a slew of lower-end HDV and HD cameras in two issues last year, cameras including the HVX200, the Sony Z1, the Canon XL H1, and the JVC HD100. You can read the articles online at: http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.p...cleId=177103305 http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.p...cleId=192501274

Thanks for the update, Marcel. If you get the chance and have any time to post more details on your shooting of "A Mighty Heart," we'd love to hear about it. Good shooting, Stas

Yeah, it's the Dec. 03 issue (Vol. 82, No. 12), with "21 Grams" on the cover. I had to do an internet search for it before I went digging through my boxes of archived AC's, since I knew it would otherwise take me forever to find it.

Marcel, I finally got the chance to see "In This World," and was blown away by how great it looked. It was a terrific, moving film, and the cinematography -- from the natural lighting to the handheld shooting -- was beautiful. I'd read the "American Cinematographer" article about the film, and knew the film had been shot with the PD-150, but I was consistently amazed at how unvideo-like most of the imagery looked, especially since the majority of it was shot in sunny exteriors. Very impressive to see DV look like this! Also loved the looks of "Code 46" and "Nine Songs." Looking forward to your next project, Stas

I have that issue, but won't be able to access it till the end of Nov. (it's currently stored out of town). If no one else is able to provide you with a scan by then, I'd be glad to send you one.

IMHO, the HVX200 offers a wider variety of features than the Sony, including more variable frame rates (12, 12, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, 36, 48, 60fps), true progressive HD recording (at both 1080 and 720), and a manual zoom (disengagble from the servo). Working with P2 cards requires a bit of a shift in workflow if you're used to shooting to tape, and you'd likely want to have at leat three p2 cards, and perhaps a p2 store hard drive to download your clips to in the field. The new Sony (HVR-V1U) is apparently able to shoot true progressive 24p, but you're still dealing with HDV's 15 GOP codec, which according to most reports, causes noticable artifacting when there's a lot of motion in your frame. Is your 10k your camera budget, or your whole feature budget? If it's your feature budget, a full HVX package wouldn't leave you a lot of money for everything else you need, like lights, audio gear, etc. Still, the image will be far superior and more robust to that of the PD170; you'll have frame independent HD resolution, variable frame rates, and 4:2:2 color sampling.

Great idea! My friend and I often talked about doing the same thing; writing a birthday song and offering it for use for free in films and tv in the hopes that it would eventually supplant the "Happy Birthday to You" song, the copyright for which, thanks to the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright extension acts of 1998, now won't expire till 2030 (prior to those acts, it was set to expire in 1991), over a hundred years after the original song "Good Morning to All," was written.

The series "What About Brian," renewed for a second season, shoots with the Genesis as well. There's a full list of Genesis projects in Panavision's ad which usually runs every month in "American Cinematographer."

So Wendell responds to your post with a link to info on VanLint and you jump down his throat and call him names? Way to treat someone for taking the time to help. :(

Yeah, only the miniseries was 35. AC's Dec article on BG is a great read but as you say, not on-line. There is this, however: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/telev...t_id=1000617085 ""High-definition certainly makes sense for effects-intensive shows. Sci Fi Channel's recent remake of the seminal 1978-79 series "Battlestar Galactica" shot its pilot on 35mm film then switched to HD when it went to series, set for a January debut. "HD is about a whole new creative medium that's out there for us to explore," "Galactica" cinematographer Stephen McNutt says. "We just have to understand how to control it creatively, and there are lots of things about it that you can control on-set, in-camera and in post." "

The HVX can shoot at different frame rates, but can't ramp or switch between them during shooting. If you want to ramp speeds in a shot with HVX footage, you'll have to do it in post.

Try Surefire flashlights; they produce a strong, sharp, focused, very bright beam. www.surefire.com

Ain't that the truth! Watched "Munich" a few nights ago and thought it was okay, probably the best Spielberg in a long while (which, IMHO, is not saying much... I think his best period of work was the 70's and early 80's, ending with E.T., and only a few exceptions since), but the last five minutes, especially the sex scene, were atrocious. In particular, the shot of Eric Bana orgasming (presumably), with sweat flying off his head and head like water from a wet dog shaking itself off, was downright laughable, quite possibly one of the worst, unintentionally funny moments I've ever seen on screen (right up there with the Terminator giving the "thumbs up" at the end of T2). I wonder if Spielberg thought the intercutting of the sex and the massacre of the hostages was powerful in the manner of the baptism sequence in "The Godfather" or the brilliant intercutting of the on-stage slap dance and the Nazis brutally beating the club owner in an alley in "Cabaret"? Whatever the case, the Munich sex/hostage slaughter sequence just didn't work for me at all.

If I remember correctly, Malle's "Au Revoir Les Enfants" has no score (the only music in the film occurs when the characters play piano in the movie), though I've not seen it in a long while (waiting for the Criterion edition to be released).

Yeah, but for that $20, I can watch it as many times as I want, plus I get the benefit of the DVD extras. Movies that I'm on the fence about seeing theatrically, I just wait for them to come to cable. Agreed, but as I said, factoring in everything else, I'd rather buy the movies I really like (or think I'll like) for $20 (or rent for $3), than spend half that to only see them once, even it is on a big screen. Over the years, the theatrical experience has lost most of its luster for me; in film school, we'd watch three movies on the big screen in class, a bunch more on video, maybe even hit a double-feature at the New Beverly, all over the course of a few days, but that was pre-dvd, when that was the only way to see a movie in its proper aspect ratio. No question, it was great (espcially seeing "Jaws" for the first time -- a brand new projected 35 print... my first exposure to Ken Russell's brilliant "The Devils," and Fosse's "Lenny"... now I'm getting all nostalgic), but now I much prefer experiencing a movie on my own terms, without any distractions -- people coughing, people chattering, people munching popcorn -- I don't know, maybe I'm just getting more irrascible in my mid-30's. :)

Bought the movie after being impressed with a clip I'd seen from it. Just watched it and thought it was terrific. Great, naturalistic performances, beautiful imagery, and a compelling story. The DVD extras are great too; insightful commentary from Soderbergh and Mark Romanek, with great tech info, and in-depth discussions of working with non-professional actors, plus lengthy segments of video interviews with the three principals conducted during casting. IMHO, totally worth the $20 the DVD cost. As for the simultaneous release vs. traditional release argument... I'm all for simultaneous. I've lost my patience with seeing movies theatrically, because the experience is so rarely optimal, and the ticket cost so high, it's just not worth the effort, unless it's something that really needs the big screen or a movie that I can't wait to see. Don't get me wrong, given the choice between watching a movie on my 27" 4:3 tv or a movie theater screen, sure, the bigger screen and surround sound wins out because it's so immersive, but given all the other variables -- noisy audiences, sub-optimal projection, etc. -- I usually just wind up watching most movies when they come to cable or disc.

The HD successor to the DVX, the HVX200, shows focus measurements via either the 0-99 scale or actual distances, whichever you prefer. I have a DVX focus chart that was posted on the net a few years back. If you have any use for it, I can e-mail it.

Hi, I don't have a lot of green screen experience but I'm now posting a short I directed that involved a number of green screen effects shots and composites (though we tried to achieve most of our effects practically), so I can give you some answers based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject. With regards to choice of camera, the less compression of your signal, the easier it will be to key out the green screen and composite in another background. It can be done with DV (my short was shot with the DVX100), but it won't look as good or work as well as a less compressed format like HD. Consider using Panasonic's new HD camera, the HVX200, which is shipping now in limited quantities, as it can shoot true HD footage at 1080 24p and 720 24p with a 4:2:2 compression. (Read plenty more about the HVX at DVXuser.com and Panasonic's pro site). "Background plate" usually refers to a piece of footage that is composited into a live action scene to replace any areas that are green screen -- for example, you shoot two actors standing in front of a green screen, then shoot a shot of a city street and composite it to the green screen shot to make it look as though the actors were standing on the city street (the city street shot would be the background plate, which would fill in all the green screen area). In my short, there were scenes involving a puppet that's come to life, so for some effects shots, we would shoot the puppet on set, being manipulated by the puppeteer, then shoot the exact same shot with just the set, to allow for rotoscoping the puppeteer out (in post, you mask out the puppeteer, and the resulting hole left in your footage is filled in by the shot of the set sans puppeteer (an "empty plate"). We shot minimal green screen, relying mostly on practical effects and locked-off shots from which I could rotoscope the puppeteer, since in my case, I found I got better results that way than with green screen, given the limited budget, though obviously thre requirements of your film are different. When dealing with camera motion and green screen, tracking marks (often white or black X's) are placed at regular intervals on the green screen so that compositors have a reference point for any camera movement, and they can then track that movement and apply the same motion to the effects or background plate. Check out the excellent magazine Cinefex (cinefex.com) for extensive articles on FX-heavy movies, and also, I think the extended "Sin City" dvd has a bunch of info on shooting with green screens. I haven't shot any HDV footage, but I've seen some and was not impressed with how the compression scheme handled motion. B)--> QUOTE(major B @ Jan 23 2006, 03:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hello every one. I havn't been on the forums for a while as I have only just come off a 5 month job as a camera trainee. It was my first job since graduating from the surrey institute (where I studied cinematography). I had a great time, but found the whole thing exhausting - I guess this is normal when your tring to start out! Anyway, Im going to be dp'ing a short film in march (probably on mini dv - either a dvx100 or xl2 with pl mount and primes) which involves two men in a boat (one being death) heading towards a tunnel at night. I havnt discussed the exact lighting requirements with the director as yet, but I do know that he wants to shoot the whole thing using green screen. I have spent all day reading all the related posts on the forums, and I must say that I have learnt so much from you all! this really is a fantastic place. What does concern me though is working knowing that the commpositer is very inexperienced with this being an almost no budget production. keeping the camera locked off when shooting, I guess, would make things alot easier for the digital artists and compossiters as they dont have to work so hard with creating background movement to match that of the cameras. However, if the story so requires a fluid style of camera, then how do I make that compromise? Is there anyway of making the compositers job easier if I am required to use movement? I know im pretty inexperienced my self, but I do understand the importance of communication between all areas of a production. Ive noticed people mentioning shooting empty "plates" for the compositers etc. Im afraid I dont understand this, so some explanation would be wonderfull. Aso, there is the possibility of shooting on HDV. does anyone know how easy it is working with HDV from a compositers possition? I read that people experience problems because its mpeg2. is this true?

Tim, if memory serves, it was a 12-120 Angenieux. For the the super wide angle shots, he used a 5.7 Kinoptic lens.

The first four seasons of 24 were shot on 35mm film. There was some talk about them switching to HD (using the Panavision Genesis camera) for the new season, but I don't know if they decided to go that way. They have used the Sony PD-150 to shoot background plates for driving scenes and flying scenes. Perhaps they upgraded to the HDR-FX1 for this purpose in recent seasons? But the show itself was shot on 35 for seasons one through four. "American Cinematographer" did a cover story on it in their Feb. 2004 issue. Read it here: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/feb04/cover/index.html

Check out this link for an article on the shooting of the "Night Stalker" pilot: http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/te...oting/4514.html They had the Genesis for only 48 hours before it was shipped off to the "Superman Returns" set. 60% of the pilot was shot with the F900. They mention that the rest of the season was to be shot with the Genesis, though I'm surprised it is, since to me, the show has a kind of obvious and not particularly pretty HD video look, not at all what I expected the Genesis (and very different from the much more "filmic" footage I've seen of "Superman Returns", though the different lighting and shooting styles for "Nightstalker" and "Superman" obviously have a great deal to do with this). Don't know what "Invasion" is shot on.

Love the cinematography of "Elephant." According to AC, it was shot on Kodak Vision 500T 5263, printed on Kodak 2393, and shot with Arricam ST and LT cameras and Zeiss superspeed lenses. From the article: "Because of all the 360-degree views, Savides couldn't add lights, "even if this were an $80 million movie," he says. After blocking a scene and seeing what was needed, "if I could bounce a light into the ceiling, change the practicals, or turn off lights, I did." Mostly, the cinematographer simply added HMIs to balance the daylight and changed the school's hodgepodge of fluorescents to keep them consistent." You can order the Oct. 2003 issue off the ASC website, here: http://www.theasc.com/cgibin/store/acsstor...B2000s&start=36 Check out a book called "New Cinematographers," which features, among other terrific newer DPs, Harris Savides, who lit "Elephant." The book talks about his lighting style and the various movies he's lit, and has great photos. You might also be interested in the Nov. 2000 issue of "American Cinematographer," which has an article on Savides's lighting for "The Yards." Meantime, here's some brief info on the cinematography of "Elephant," from the film's website: The makers of Elephant were determined to shoot the film in a real high school. Producer Wolf was able to secure the school system?s permission to use a recently de-commissioned high school in northeast Portland. The school?s furniture and fixtures were still mostly intact. "In pretty short order we had the whole place looking like it was a normal school again. We wanted it to be as real as it could be," Wolf explains. Elephant filmed for twenty days in November 2002. The film marks the third collaboration between Van Sant and acclaimed director of photography Harris Savides, who shot Van Sant?s Finding Forrester as well as Gerry , which earned Savides a 2002 Independent Spirit Award nomination. Shot in 35mm, Elephant is remarkable for its pictorial beauty and detail: the vistas of land and sky; the long tracking shots that quietly follow the students; the patient observation of a human face. Yet it is also a very immediate and authentic portrait of an environment, and the people within it. In arriving at the film?s visual aesthetic, Van Sant and Savides drew inspiration from the documentaries of Frederick Wiseman ( Domestic Violence ,The Store ,High School ) and the photography of William Eggleston. Says Van Sant, "Wiseman is always shooting in relatively difficult places to film, whether it?s a department store or a high school. He?s really trying to get a portrait of the situation, the people, the place. Same with William Eggleston: he?s taking still shots of environment, but it?s also characters and people. With both Wiseman and Eggleston, you?re not exactly sure where they are, but wherever it is, it looks amazing. So we were thinking in terms of things that look great but aren?t necessarily pampered or overthought or over-worked. We used a lot of window light, or whatever light was there, really ? and tried to find what was beautiful in that." The decision was also made to shoot the film in 1:33 ratio, rather than the wider 1:85 ratio used in most contemporary films. The format had been the industry standard until the mid 1950s, and Van Sant had used it in his early 16mm films. He was eager to use it again. "I really like the shape of that format. Also, we were going to be shooting in situations that I thought would look good in 1:33, like hallways," he explains. Moreover, American schools showed 16mm films in 1:33 for decades, until video became the norm.