Tobias Marshall

Thankyou Stuart, noted.

Thankyou Phil, that is amazing advice. I'm now looking for a Dragonframe operator after checking this out this is the way forward for this project. If anyone has any further tips, it is greatly appreciated.

Ive been asked to shoot a stop motion shoot. I feel it is pretty straight forward, but would love to have any advice people may have. Also I need to assemble a equipment list so any suggestions on how best to do it would be greatly appreciated. At present Im thinking Canon 5D on a rostrum hooked up to capture one software.

I was looking for his email so thankyou for finding this.

Im shooting a concept film for an artist who want to reenact a scene from 'Funny Games' where the boys enter the house and first attack the family. I was wondering if anyone had any information on the lenses used, the camera sheets would be the best resource but any help would be greatly appreciated.

I wouldnt go that far Freya, I do consider that the Auteur title can be used but under what criteria is down to personal opinion. Anything that is made, be it a painting or song is done under pressures from the world and from the craft itself. Work produced under pressure is often better than when not, so when Fuller/Ford/Bunuel made films for studios that still weaved in meaning maybe on a far more absract and artful level.

Vadim Bobkovsky One hole, in your argument regarding the use of rear projection and glass plates, ... they all happen in camera.

Forgot to add, even from sitting in a shopping trolley!

Use anything you can, Ive seen platforms built, operators sitting on Sliders anything that gets you where you need to be. I will say the Operators that Ive worked with that I repect wouldnt be seen with an Easy Rig. Camera Operating is about controling the camera, with you lose the more technology you put in the way, including long handle bars that remove you from the central weight of the camera. Please take this with a pinch of salt this is just my ethos.

Phil Rhodes, I think you need to expand your argument rather than just state British films look awful, and why other films are superior? Please cite some films and discuss why because otherwise your righteous views should be considered just that.

Whats your problem Simon? He even said: "Thanks in advance for any insight" Which you removed. You took the time to answer his question but also took the time to be very rude.

As with all the heads of departments, they are working under the direction of the Director. If they put their stamp on the work, it would have been because of the discussions and collaboration, but like a shepard the Director can say he doesnt like an idea and thus the ones that make it have been approved.

If the caps are off, you've got a few seconds as a 2nd to check the back element is clean as you walk over.

I worked as a 2nd for over 7 years. The more experience you have the better you get at the job, you see things happening before they happen. If you make mistakes dont beat yourself up, worrying about them will make you make others. Dont try to be good at your job, just do your job like a ninja

Close-ups like Camera moves, mean more if used with motive behind. When the film is bombarded with them, they lose any effect, a less is more approach. Its takes good direction to stage a wide and know when to use a close-up, Im aware that this might not be the intended style of the film but its a style I dont like. How many films spend millions on sets, only to see the millions spent on the mugs of actors. I blame MTV.

I never suggested Spinotti didnt know what he was doing, only regardless of format; this was a poorly lit film. The nightclub scene looked almost as if no artifical lighting was used, which can look great but it caused flat magenta tones and muggy blacks that eclipst the frame with no depth. Cinematography for me looks its best when its natural and doesnt bring your attention to it but that doesnt mean it has to be ugly. When ever Dillinger walked past practicals that were blowing out (When he walked out of the club along the stairs, or when he walked in to the police station) all I could see was the ugly look of digital loss of detail, if you like that look we should just stop talking. I will love to hear the views of someone who liked the lighting. As for the EX-1 it looked as blantant as a PD-150 cut with film. ''Unrelated Camera Mischief'' on a different level, mischief with formats. Does Micheal Mann have shares in Sony? I bet he gets alot of back-up from companies for being at the forefront of HD production.

For me its simple: it is a badly directed film and poorly lit, this not helped by the choice of substandard formats, for example HDV. Firstly in Direction: I didnt care for, associate or understand any of the characters which for me is vital. No Beginning or End, Just Middle. lt lacked story with events just tied together by Dillinger's involvement. In scenes I was confused by the staging and cutting to where people were and time relation, something I notice alot in these 'choppey' handheld movies. Some shots really bought your attention to the camera (as Eisenstein would say ''Unrelated Camera Mischief'') which drags the viewer out from the screen making the realisation, infact I am sitting in a chair watching a movie (I love Goddard so this isn't down to technique, only application). The shot which followed Billie from the ladies switch to the door in her apartment was just awful, it looked like student film-making. (On a side note - the Sound was also terrible, not just ADR but the lack of diegetic noise to make the scenes feel alive) As for Cinematography, I was waiting for who's name would be at the end and was shocked to find it was Dante Spinotti. Manhunter for me is what Micheal Mann is about, its so bold and part of that is Spinotti's work. First off the film would have looked better if shot on film or one high end HD camera but it still would have been a poor film, however it was made worse by the the format. Many scenes were High-Contrast, something video really struggles with its lack of latitude. The highlights were constantly blowing out losing detail, its bold but horrible, especially with video. They didnt raise the light levels with fill to even out the latitude, its almost like their were using video's downfalls to try to establish a look. As for using EX-1, one has to ask why?, as there was no shots in the film that a 35mm camera couldnt have done. Its a big budget movie and they are are using a cheap camera which comes with heavy magenta hues and noise. The low-light scene were awful, so muggy and dark, it looked like they only used praticals but I doubt this, they looked very flat. Lots of shots looked underexposed. You could say I fould this film uncomfortable to watch . .

Finally some answers . . .

I find a strong kicker very artifical at times, unless it is motivated. I struggle to watch most big budget hollywood pictures, as every shot has a 'perfect 3/4 backlight' whether or not there is a reason for, which I find cheap and very unimaginative.

I am acutally only hiring the Movietube as the rest of gear as been provided for free, it is a case of having to use whats available to me as there is no-budget, its not ideal. I recently assisted on a test using Movietube with a cameraman, he used a Panasonic DVX100 as the docking camera in low-light situations, does this camera have a similar ASA to the Z1, as I could push for one if thats the case (How come an ASA rating is not published for these cameras in the spec?). As for the 16mm Lenses, I spoke to a Movietube Supplier here in the UK, he said its not recommended however as long as the back element doesnt hit the screen, and there would be a change to the focal lenght ofcourse, he couldnt tell me anymore. Not saying your wrong but could you explain further why you shouldnt use them? As the night ext, I could have described it further; its under a long bridge with many lights either side of the walls which I believe are sodium vapour, I would get a decent exposure however im concerned it wont photograph well due to the nature of the light thus I was looking for the things in my above post. The HMI isnt to light the scene, just maybe for a kicker, also the 2k for some bounce on the keyside. The Biggest light you can run off mains in the UK is a 1.2HMI, im not sure about incandescent fixtures, I believe its a 2k but would love to know otherwise, I would love to play with a 5k!. As for my Focus Puller, its some good training! Just as its is for me and my lighting!

I am acutally only hiring the Movietube as the rest of gear as been provided for free, it is a case of having to use whats available to me as there is no-budget, its not ideal. I recently assisted on a test using Movietube with a cameraman, he used a Panasonic DVX100 as the docking camera in low-light situations, does this camera have a similar ASA to the Z1, as I could push for one if thats not the case (How come an ASA rating is not published for these cameras in the spec?). As for the 16mm Lenses, I spoke to a Movietube Supplier (he didnt know much more!) here in the UK, he said its not recommended however as long as the back element doesnt hit the screen, and there would be a change to the focal lenght ofcourse. Not saying your wrong but could you explain further why you shouldnt use them? As the night ext, I could have described it further; its under a long bridge with many lights either side of the walls which I believe are sodium vapour, I would get a decent exposure however im concerned it wont photograph well due to the nature of the light thus I was looking for the things in my above post. The HMI isnt to light the scene, just maybe for a kicker, also the 2k for some bounce on the keyside. The Biggest light you can run off mains in the UK is a 1.2HMI, im not sure about incandescent fixtures, I believe its a 2k but would love to know otherwise, I would love to play with a 5k!. As for my Focus Puller, its some good training! Just as its is for me and my lighting!

I am lighting a short using the Movietube with a Z1 as the docking camera, we will be using Zeiss Super Speeds T1.3 or possibly 16mm Distagons if the back element doesnt imped on the screen with the widest which is 9.5mm (if anybody knows it would save me testing it as it seems there is no infomation on the web). I need to know what to rate the Z1 with the Movietube (if it affects I do not know) I have been told in the past that the Z1 should be rated at 320 ASA. This is because of a night ext. where the 1.2HMI and a 2k are the biggest in my arsenal and it would help a bundle with my calculations. The night scene is in a tunnel with many sodium vapour lights as praticals, I wondered considering the format if this would look too brown/yellow and whether there is anythings I can do on the camera side to manipulate this, also what gel reduces this if it possible. I believe superwhite flame can convert (from 3.2k?) to give the sodium look but Im looking for the opposite. Any tips or advice lighting with the Movietube would be greatly received as Im a first time user. Thanks.

The score for Das Boot whilst being a synthesized (The Best one in my opinion,Ennio Morrocone's The Thing a close second), is riveting and drives the film equally to what we are seeing on screen, be it the Boat ripping through the waves or in the engine room. There is also an acustic guitar version for the end scenes which is also emotional. Also the score for Three Colour Blue, that is interwoven with the film, is possibly the most beautiful music I've ever heard. It gave me the first notion of melancholy as a child!.

Or as Eisenstein said about Dziga Vertov, "Unmotivated Camera Mischief"!

How so? This kind of bothers me. The art is not the educated guessing game of negative film exposure. The art is the crafting of an image. The final product. How does seeing what you are getting remove the art from the process? You make a good point because a beautiful image is simply that, no matter how you came to it. However for me what grabs me about Photography, is the craft, and I hate to see the craft lost. Why have a darkroom when you can have photoshop? simply because I respect craft more than shortcuts, maybe I'm just a romantic. Also, Cinematography is defined as: The art of making motion pictures. This is not exclusive to film or theatrically projected movies. As in every word on any post-board its just opinion, I'm sure alot of people who shoot on miniDV consider themselves Cinematographers, I don't criticize them for thinking this, I just don't consider them Cinematographers. I as stated earlier I feel the term should be reserved for those who use Photography in its purest form whilst bringing us to theatres.