Ryley Grunenwald

Hello, For my graduation short film next week (shot on Crystal sync Arri SR2 on S16), I want to have some practical fluorescent lights flickering in the background - as if the location is really dodgy/ down and out. Does any one know how I could create this without changing the f/s or actually trying to find lights that are already like that? Is their a cheap and quick (but safe) way that I could interfere with the electrics perhaps? Thanks!

Thank you all for your help. It think it all boils down to my definition of latitude. There definitely was some inforation beyond 2.5 stops either side. On the underexposure side most of the image was there but obviously very very grainy and dark - espeially in the dark tones. at 2.5 stops overexposure the image was already washed out; at 3.5 very milky; at 4.5 stop I could just make out the edges of the clapper board; at 5.5 stops it was completely white. (The film was processed at The Filmlab; viewed a Telecine; then dumped onto miniDV tape for further viewing). If latitude includes ANY detail whatsoever (like the edge of the clapper), then the latitude is probably more like 8 stops. If it is purely the boundaries that one can expose the key and correct acceptably - then it is more like 1.5 stops either way. Does this sound more normal. Should I shoot with this? By the way, what are the official definitions of range and latitude. Thank you again.

Hi, I would really appreciate any help on this matter. In 5 days will be shooting my graduation road trip film (predominantly day exterior) on Kodak Vision 250D that was bought by my film school. the emulsion number of the stock I tested was traced by the stockist and it is apparently new. I did some crude film tests where I disovered the latitude was about 5 stops (2.5 stops on each side of 18% grey). While some people I have spoken to, including the stockist, say that 5 stops is great - others say I shoud expect more. Not having any experience on this stock I'm not sure what to believe. I basically shot the test on an Arri SR2 S16mm camera with a 9mm Kowa lens. I pin pointed the exposure between f8 and f11 as this was the incident reading. I then closed the aperture stop by stop until f22 and then opened it until f1.2. the acceptable range (if that's what one calls it) was from f4 to f22. the stock seemed to favour underexposure to overexposure. I did this on a grey scale card as well as a Macbeth Colour Chart. Seeing that it was my first test, perhaps I made some critical errors? Please could some one tell me if this latitude is perfectly normal or if I should make plans to buy new stock? In some ways a smaller lattitude may be helpful as I can get more contrast more easily? But on the other hand, the huge stop differences of car interior and exterior may need a more forgiving latitude since I won't have much light aside from refletors to boost the interior readings. Thank you so much. Ryley Olivier student

Yeah, I totally agree.

Thanks for your insight. Yes, I have to admit - I don't see many women in the camera departments...I'm not sure if that is because of discrimination or maybe because most women don't get a thrill out of building a camera, and carrying sandbags. It has lead to some interesting moments. Usually the big grips will laugh their heads off when I arrive on set and say "no, I'm not in wardrobe...I've been hired as a camera assistant" ect. And then the DP looks a bit nervous letting me hold the camera...but maybe because I look about 15 at 5 ft 2 inches and 50kg hee hee. And then there are the men on set who aren't quite sure what to do when they see me carrying the camera on its head and risers. Most are gentlemen and offer to help me...in which case I have to smile sweetly and say "no, thank you." Some DP's have even told me they would feel uncomfortable working with me (as a woman) because they would feel guilty shouting at me if I did something too slow ect...they said they knew they could scream and swear at their male assistants without worrying if they they had hurt their feelings. I thought that was quite interesting. I've seen that my fellow male camera department workers certainly have the upper hand when it comes to strength and unfortunately that's nature. Yes, I will carry anything...but I might not be able to do it as fast. Luckily there is no natural superiority when it comes to problem solving, a good eye and creativity. These I can constntly develop and hopefully one day I will not be seen as inferior because I can't carry a dolly without straining. It is good to know you've been married for so long. Obviously it is possible. I am probably getting married next year so I have been revaluating my priorities.I absolutely love being on set and working hard. Cine will always be my passion. However, after my family's dodgy track record, I don't want my future family to take a back seat to my job. So I may pull an Owen Roizman stunt in about 10 years :D I used to think that if I wanted to be a brilliant cinematographer I would have to sacrifice stable relationships / social life beyond the crew / lunch at grandma's... But maybe a balanced life will give us a better understanding of humanity and the stories we live to tell.

Thanks Mitch, That sounds so hardcore but it's really awesome you've made your mind up to be successful at both. As a woman, I realize that I just may have to give the job a rest for a few years when I eventually have kids - it's a tough one. But having not come from the most Brady bunch of families, it's one of my priorites to have a great one...Thanks for giving me hope that it's possible (and for the tips ;) ).Good luck.

Hey, I'm wanting a career in cine and it looks like the kind of lifestyle I want: constantly changing, challenging, requiring hard work, technical skills, creativity and often meeting new people and seeing new places. The main negative thing I have heard from people who've been in the film industry for a while is that relationships beyond the set are a joke and a decent family life is almost unheard of. Apparently this is mainly because DOPs are away for months at a time and the spouse doesn't take too kindly to that or the strange hours. Is there anyone out there who can say that they're happy with the state of their career and their romantic relationship/marriage/family? or is it a case of choosing between the two? Can we be successful at both?

Thanks for the advice. What exactly happens in the printing process? Is this a step in between developing the neg and Telecine? :blink: We once had a tour of the film Lab and thee was this machine that "coloured" a print according to a coded paper (like braille) that represented what the grader and DOP wanted the colour grade to look like. Is this the printing process? I know we are not allowed to have that step - what we shoot is what we get. We do not have much say in what happens to our cans once we drop it off at the Film Lab and then have a 2 hour grade in Telecine (afterwhich they transfer the normal processed neg (or print?) onto a Beta SP cassette. So maybe I can't print down. if that is the case I think I will expose for the windshield then subtract the filter fatcor (because the polarizer should make sure I don't only expose the reflection). (I will definitely use a polarizer - thanks). .

Hi, My name is Ryley and this is my first post. I am a 3rd year film student in JHB, South Africa. I'd really appreciate any help from all ye Experienced Ones. I will soon be shooting a road trip movie on super 16mm on the Arri SR2 and have done a bit of research on windshield reflections. I have decided that I want some reflection - but obviously to mainly focus on the actor. I read somewhere that it is best to spotmeter the windshield then overexpose it otherwise I will only expose the reflection. and then...I should "print down". My problem is that I have virtually no experience or knowledge with the lab as our film school usually only allows "standard" developing. does "print down" mean pull it by one stop? or am I totally off the mark? Thank you! Ryley Olivier JHB, South Africa