Saul Rodgar

That sounds like the US too. Currently, unless one is super established or a star member of the ASC (or similar), the only jobs available are poop jobs. Which one will only get if one has an in with the producers. I imagine it is like that everywhere, especially with the advent of uber-available DSLRs, RED and like video cameras / desktop editing equipment.

I like to use somewhat hard bounced light to (at least) one side of the face to make it pop, in addition to whatever else the scene calls for light wise.

I realize only the DP of the particular project can make this sort of call. But as far as I am concerned, the RED can use all the softening it can get, as its sharpness is what bothers me the most about it. So you may have not gone nowhere near far enough with the Soft FX filtering. ;)

I am actually mildly shocked and surprised that Ivan, being in Russia, is not considering using the Kinor HD cameras. I have not used any of these cams, and therefore have no clue if there are any post pitfalls to this technology, but it is impressive on paper: http://www.kinor.ru/en/products/camera/dchs/ http://www.kinor.ru/en/products/flashdvr/ Otherwise, I am with Satsuki: Test, test, test! I was hoping not to have to point Russians to technology developed in their own country. ;)

From the write-up: 'Mr. Jannard makes a cameo in Andre Agassi's autobiography, "Open," for sending the tennis star a red Dodge Viper in 1992 after he appeared on the cover of a magazine sporting a pair of Oakleys.' Crap, it seems a lot of us at cine.com have missed out on the free sport cars on account of our tireless bashing of Mr Jannard's cameras. ;)

There's a cable that may work: http://www.gigaweb.com/products/view/18742...d-firewire.html But as far as I know USB and Firewire are pretty much mutually exclusive for most pro video apps, at least on Macs they are. In my experience, the video data won't flow properly --if at all-- when you go out USB and try to convert it to Firewire. But I haven't tried that cable. I'd look for an Asus laptop that does have Firewire or buy the one you want and just live without it if the above cable doesn't work. Of course you can order the cable first and try it on USB port off a similar PC and go from there. . .

George: The archives contain several threads where we have gone at it at length. I'd suggest looking there. In a nutshell, I am with Adrian. Work on sets. Film school is for networking. I have seen many film school grads start on film sets as grips, PAs or craft services, below the rest of the crew members who don't have a degree. And once they are out of college, it takes them just as long to move up to whatever they originally wanted to do as those who didn't go to school. The only school I would go to is the AFI, and I won't. If what you want to do is shoot student projects, I'd suggest trying to get a job at one of your local schools, like at the equipment cage, where you have access to equipment and projects, plus some money. You can also volunteer there and at film shoots, if you have savings. Becoming a successful DP is a combination of talent, drive, knowledge, connections and luck, not in that order and not in equal measures either. How you get there is your own personal choice. And once you get there, there is no guarantee you will continue doing it for the rest of your career. So not an easy task this becoming a DP. It seems everybody and their mothers want to become DPs anyway. So I really don't know what advice I could give you beyond the above. It is not like I am that far enough along in my career to do so. In other words, I need advice too, and I suspect a large number of cine.com members do as well. And that may be why you are not getting a lot of response to your original query. ;)

I am so jaded about the marketing slogans: "Alexa, the camera that will Revolutionize film making," or whatever. YAWN. First it was RED, then the DSLRs, (to name but a very few REVOLUTIONS in the last few years) and now this. These marketing people need to come up with new catchwords and slogans. I know it is not fair to judge by watching clips online, but what I saw on the Cup match was fairly similar to RED MX or Canon 5D footage I have seen. Little noise, very sharp, lots of bokeh and despite all its glory, remarkably bland with very little true character. It spells video all over. IT IS VIDEO. I want me some grain softness on my footage, dammit! Would love to see a MX RED / Alexa / (and even) 5D / F35 side by side comparison test with the same lens on. It would be unfair because the latter two cameras don't have RAW recording and so on. Could all these technologies co-exist, or are we looking at a Blue Ray vs HD DVD type confrontation? End of rant

Since no one is jumping at the opportunity to set the record straight on RED --and someone should-- I will say that RED is revolutionary and it certainly cannot be compared to any other video camera, much, much less a prosumer camera. It takes many months of kindly embracing portraits of Jim Jannard to even begin to comprehend the magic that RED cameras are capable of producing. It is true, I read that somewhere on RED forum. Oh, and did I mention, one must at least attend one full session of the REDucation course? Why, of course, we get to hear it from the man who single-handedly has liberated film making from the evil clutches of traditional film processes. And by the way, film making from now one should be renamed REDmaking, because film is such an ugly and passé word, much like the technology itself. I could continue, but I must be off to drown my (film) sorrows in hard liquor. Tomorrow, I attend the REDucation camp!

Gaourss? What kind of name is that anyway? I would hope that Arri has an exclusivity contract with any Chinese manufacturer that it may order parts from. To me it seems just a remarkably Arri-like knock off, but we all know looks can deceive, so as to the actual quality it seems only those who buy them will be able to tell in due time. Personally, I am of the belief that ultimately it is expensive to be stingy when it comes to professional equipment -- broken equipment when I need it most is not something I particularly enjoy dealing with --so I stay away from the potentially "too good to be true" deals. To each his own tho, I certainly don't judge people who buy equipment that I pass up on.

Reducation?? That sounds like a communist re-education camp, which weren't anything to laugh about if one was unlucky to be sent to one.

As for the motor, sometimes they pop up on fleaBay. They are expensive tho. There are some original motors that were modified by Cinema Products, to fun at 8,12,24,32,48 fps and that may run a 400' load. Mine does. So just keep your eyes peeled for that.

I used to think that, but talking to a lot of producers changed my mind. Over the years I have prepped a lot of shows and have gotten first hand experience as to how executive producers select DPs for interviews for anything between a $20 thousand dollar commercial to $20 million + features and believe you me, most of them are not impressed by some "cool looking" demo reel, beyond "that is cool looking." There are so many other considerations to hiring a DP that it really is disheartening for someone starting out. So the "first impression" is now more like "I am cramming everything I can to sell myself as a DP" effort. ;)

Guy, you're the man. Good job on that thorough explanation.

It really depends on your preference. Arri and LTM are both good brands. Desisti and Strand I have never used. With Par lights you need the lenses, which can break and add to the pile of stuff to lug around. Magnetic ballasts are heavier than electronic, and tend to be more prone to flickering, depending on type and age, but tougher than electronic. Broad generalizations, I know. I would suggest not buying one unless you are willing and can afford to do maintenance on it regularly. I own some lights, none HMI, hearing horror stories from people who own them is enough for me. I rather rent. That said, if you must buy, I recommend hanging out at grip and electric rental facilities and getting to know different lights, their pros and cons. I certainly would not rush into it. I am sure someone else here can give you additional or better advice, but I would think long and hard before buying one of these babies.

Well, a DP reel should show several things, IMO. One it should establish that the DP has a good eye for composition, that can be a cool shot here and there. Two, it should show a DP can light a scene, this should be a couple of shots showing the consistency of the lighting throughout. Three, it should show diversity in style, subject matter and formats. And so on, but any extras are gravy and may even be superfluous. In the age of DVDs and the internet, the reel should aim at selling the DP in no less than 30 secs. Then links to the longer pieces are a bonus, for those who would like to watch more at length pieces. But ultimately very few people choose a DP based on a reel alone. It is just part of the overall package and it becomes an asset when someone, like an agent can send / show it to prospective clients who may be interested in hiring a DP. Unfortunately, this business is really "who you know" more than "what you know" at least when starting out. Sort of a little necessary evil. ;)

It does look crushed, and the negative looks thin. From personal experience, I know some of the detail exposed 2 1/2 stops under is salvageable, maybe 3, but it will generally always look dark and grainy, or washed out if they just crank the brightness up. There are too many variables here to properly judge without looking at the density of the negative. Was the stock fresh? Are you certain the exposure was correct? Are you certain the filters (if any) were correctly taken into account for exposure, etc? I would try doing a densitometry test on the neg or sending the film to another lab and going form there. Calling whoever was present at the TK bay when the film was transferred is always the first thing to do.

I wonder if the Kinor HD cameras wouldn't be a wise alternative, being that 65mm film is expensive and most production co's (in the west, at least) would not be able to produce a stereo 3D feature in 35mm, much less in 65mm. Personally, I would love to shoot 65mm 3D, don't get me wrong. Just being pragmatic . . . ;) http://www.kinor.ru/en/products/camera/dchs/

http://gizmodo.com/5519821/carl-zeiss-cine...akers-this-june For anyone hoping for the HDSLR market would just as soon vanish (cough, cough Jim Jannard?), here is proof that it won't anytime soon. Not only that, when Carl Zeiss decides to market lenses specifically for that market, well, things are only picking up. Obviously, these lenses may be usable on RED, Alexa and 35mm for all I know, as PL mounts will be reportedly supported. At 2.6, the f stop is not the greatest we are used to, but maybe the actual primes are faster. No word about pricing yet.

I hear you. One can only hope people realize that shooting on film sets them apart ,look-wise, from the rest of the pack --who shoots on video now. Sad days indeed.

I have done overexposure for both prints and telecine and have always had excellent results. My lab techs have never complained. My printer lights are therefore higher than if I hadn't overexposed, but well within tolerances. I guess this is a practice that really is based on experience and taste rather than recommendation. Someone can say whatever they like or have had good results with in the past, but that doesn't mean that it will translate well to what you are trying to convey with cinematography. That is why shooting tests is always good, and nothing replaces hands-on experience, of course. So I don't really think you will find definitive consensus about overexposure. Some people may argue that the only way to expose the negative is by the Kodak / Fuji charts, and some others will disagree. Just like anything else, I guess . . . ;) Good luck!

This subject has been covered here extensively, and that may be an understatement. You may want to check the archives. But yes, generally speaking most of us overexpose our negative stock regardless of digital of print finish. Overexposing cleans up grain and prevents the shadows from going completely black, among other things. As to how much, well, most people here say 2/3s of a stop is what they feel comfortable with, sort of conservative overexposure, which is a good thing. I usually go 1 stop, depending on the situation. And sometimes I don't overexpose at all. Like I said, it just depends what is needed case by case.

RED has a 617 camera coming out soon? Pfff! That is nothing. I hear there is a 100K-pixel 8x10 stereo 3D hand held anamorphic super stealth motion picture camera under $500 being developed by a conglomerate of camera manufacturers determined to prevent letting RED have the biggest K's on the market. :blink:

A data HD film camera with an optical viewfinder, sweet! No RAW recording that I can tell. But Aaton is clearly onto something getting ready to release a dual format 35mm / HD professional cinematography camera system, the first and only one of its kind. Most excellent!

I'd say light sources can look "sourcey" as long as there is a motivation for it. Sort of finding a happy medium between soft even lighting and strong directional lighting, as required by the scene, project, etc. But I agree. I didn't really see a motivation for the strong lights in the first section. Also, the reel is overall dark and brooding in its lighting. If I were hiring a DP, I'd be looking for someone whose reel showed me range in lighting and mood.