Jonathan Bowerbank

Let's not forget that this good man is on a student film budget. 2 Hours for an 8 to 10 minute film is EXTREME, especially when we're speaking in terms of shooting and processing 16mm. The best way to keep costs down when shooting a short film on a tight budget is to do a lot of pre-production. A lot of rehearsals so you know your actors have their lines down to at least get you what you need, therefore requiring less takes. I just cut my friend's 13 minute Sci Fi film, he only ran about 4 x 400' rolls of film during production and he managed to get some quality performances without doing multiple takes of most of the scenes. So a little under 4:1 shooting ratio in this case was what we accomplished, which is something you should aim for, especially when you're on a student's budget. :) Here here Martin. This is off topic, but the movie industry has for the most part turned into a big budgeted B-Movie industry, not too different from the monster movie and Corman days of the 50's through 70's (just bigger budgets and special effects). People just need to start recognizing where the dividing line is. There will always be a B-Movie audience and an "A-Movie" audience, it would just be nice if the B-Movie's weren't so dominant in the marketplace.

I was just curious if anyone on here has any experiences of their virgin raw stock or exposed stock being subject to the least ideal conditions, yet still turning out alright after processing. We all know to take special care of our stock, but I was curious to know really what kind of hell film can go through before totally getting ruined. As the technology of film emulsions advances, I'd like to know if its durability is increasing as well. Let me know if you've ever: Loaded a Daylight Spool in broad daylight and your film survived. Kept your exposed film stored at room temp for an extended period of time, and yet it survived. Had your film scanned by Airport X-Rays, and yet it survived. Loaded and shot a roll of film that was removed from a freezer and not given enough time to thaw, and yet the footage came out alright. Any other examples would be great as well. I'm looking for firsthand experiences, please no "My friend...", or "I heard that..." stories. Thanks!

Sounds good to me. I've used CT Straw gels to mimic that look before as well, it's worth a shot if you're interested to see what it looks like.

I don't know what shot you're talking about, but I'm assuming the subject is backlit by either a Xenon or HMI, while top light by another source. It's not a characteristic of the light to see the beam unless the set has been smoked, which is probably the case here. But you're right about the lights wattage making a difference. To get a really good shaft of light you really need that light to be bright, at least a few stops over key.

I really enjoyed Inside Man as well. It was actually really nice to see Spike Lee disciplining himself and creating a really tight thriller. And Clive Owen couldn't have been any cooler. You should read the ASC Mag article about the making of Inside Man as well. It's really interesting how they shot the exterior scenes, especially when cops were arriving on the scene or whenever hostages were being released. I guess they had about 16 cameras going at once, all placed in various locations, shooting from rooftops and such.

That photo's from the latest ASC Mag. And yeah, it's just a light box with an HMI inside.

At Apple.com's trailer site you can download a 1080i version of the trailer, if you're really curious to see what everyone's talking about. I noticed some lack of quality in the out of focus areas of the frames, it just looks so different from film that I'm not too crazy about it yet.

First of all "batman", you gotta use your real name, as this is a professional forum. Here in San Francisco, it's $30 every 100' raw stock, .20¢/foot for processing, $370.00 per hour of telecined footage. It sounds like you're a beginner as far as 16mm filmmaking goes. You mentioned you can get a camera for $900 a week...if you have $900 to spend, I'd just invest my money in my own camera if I were you, depending on your project.

I've seen some great stuff shot with the Kras...however, the camera's a pain in the ass to load, hardly worth the investment for the sweat and stress you'll go through loading it 1 100' spool at a time. I'd be interested to see someone with a modified S16 version of the inexpensive "prosumer" Canon Scoopic. I'm not sure if its lens structure would allow it though. Does anyone know?

It always depends on what your opinion of "moonlight" is and what your visual palette is for the film. The CTB with a plus green will give it a moonlight with an artificial fluorescent element, most likely. If that's what you're going for. Using a full CTB on a tungsten works for some too. That's what I've used, while underexposing it by about 1 stop.

"The Fountain" was such a gorgeous film. Basically it's a big budget art film, so A LOT of people just aren't going to "get it". But I was totally taken by its story, how beautifully shot it was, and the performances were fantastic. I don't quite yet understand all of it, but I have no problem going to see it again and again to try and access the deeper meanings of the film. Aronofsky is a film artist to be compared to the likes of Malick & Kubrick, in my own humble opinion. It may sound like I'm putting him on a pretty high pedistle for a man who's only made 3 films, but he's definitely up there.

Silks & scrims, silks & scrims :)

Great work! I just wish the video wasn't cut so tight. We really don't get a chance to see every shot for what it is. Yeah it's a fast paced song, but also quite epic, so I would have like to see some lengthier shots...especially so I could appreciate your work better ;) cheers!

Get a Xenon flashlight, they're brighter and daylight balanced so the light coming from them shows up great on film.

Hey everyone, I just added this book to my "Christmas list". Do any of you DP's who have read it regard it as a valuable resource and filmmaking reference? Is this something I should definitely have in my library? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/024080495...d=21RLE2MTVICNR

He never said "undiscovered", just relatively unknown So many young actors are coming and going though, it's harder than ever to tell who will be great and who isn't going to last. What's easy to do though is spot the people who do have talent, however, it's not always talent alone that makes for a great actor.

Don't forget some of the poorly executed "day for night" effects that a lot of those 80's films did. Use "Caddyshack" as a point of reference.

In camera light meters rarely work the way they're supposed to, they're very unreliable. I recommend you splurge for a good ol' Sekonic.

I noticed he did this quite a bit in "Kill Bill" as well, especially during the B&W scenes at the church and during the infamous Crazy 88's fight. I felt Kill Bill was some of his best work as well. A lot of people felt it was QT getting closer to mastering his craft regarding camera movements, framing, etc. But Richardson I believe had a HUGE hand in how that film looked. It's funny, as soon as I finished typing that last paragraph, I took a peek at his credits on IMDb and immediately all the images and usage of the aforementioned technique came racing into my head. It truly is a style of his own.

I second that advice. An entire music video from only 3 angles could lack the attractive dynamic that we're used to seeing in videos. Depends on what you're going for, some videos are just one shot, and yet the subject is interesting enough to watch for the entire length of the song (ie that one with Alanis Morissette...can't recall the title of the song). But if you're worried about coverage, yeah, get all your long, mediums & closeups, from various angles. And do a few more takes where the camera is doing tracking shots, trucking sideways, overhead, etc... The more coverage you can afford to get, the better, I say.

The one that I know a lot of pro lighting technicians use is called "WYSIWYG" (What You See Is What You Get). It's expensive I don't think it gives you any exposure perameters, other than the amount of light in footcandles. I'd only use it for a fancy way to show my gaffers & grips how the lighting is going to be, but otherwise if you're on an indie budget just stick with the ol' drafting tools.

If it's just going to DVD for festival showing, then S16 would definitely be my ideal choice. Mostly for budgetary reasons. But if you're ademant about shooting on 35 for once, then go for it, it'll be good experience plus you'll get some raised eyebrows at festivals when you say it was shot on 35.

I didn't notice anything wrong with the projected image when I saw it in the theatre. I'll have to see the DVD to know if there's any veracity to your statement though. My only problem was the very last effects shot of Superman flying through the clouds, it just didn't look realistic. It was like a plastic doll flying through a videogame.

That video clip's a trip

Oh cool, cheers for that Hal