David Bradley

Thanks Micheal. I should have phrased the question better I suppose. Director wanted I POV using a 2/3" CCD 16:9 and I wanted to be sure I could find a relatively objective focal length before photography commences.

Anyone know what focal length would create a relatively objective image on a DSR 570 WS 16:9 2/3" CCD camera? Best David Bradley

I would save a bit longer and look into getting a used Sony PD 150 or PD 170. You could always go one up but its important to have as much control as you can get of the image and anything like the GZ-MG555 just won't do. Others will probably argue that when your starting its just image composition and capturing thats important to learn but I'm sure your eager to get to grips with more techy stuff - PD 150 is a good place to start.

the mired value of a light source is equal to '1,000,000 / X' where x equals the colour temperature in Kelvin. Colour correction gels such as colour temperature blue (CTB) and Colour temperature orange (CTO) vary in intensity and can be purchased according to their mired value. To work out the appropriate Mired shift value required to balance a light source to another of a different colour temperature or to your film stock simply divide 1,000,000 by the colour temperature in degrees kelvin for the original source (the one you wish to emulate perhaps) then do the same again for the other source and subtract its value from the original. i.e. 1000000 / 5500 (photographic daylight) = 181 (approx) 1000000 / 3200 (Tungsten studio lamp) = 312 (approx) 181 - 312 = -131 -131 is the mired shift value of wratten 80A and is generally used to balance tungsten (3200k) to daylight (5500k). Mired values correspond more effectively to our perception of colour than measuring in Kelvin. CC gels always have a mired value so its good to know a bit about it when purchasing your gels and filters. Using mireds allows the cinematographer to accurately emulate specific colour temperatures in a uniformed manner. If your not satisfied with this explanation the internet is a good place to look but also check out the chapter on colour theory in Blaine Brown's 'Cinematography Theory and Practice' (2004).

WOW! Sorry if I offended you there Dan but I wasn't refering to you in that statement nor did I wish to imply that you think you can do better. Infact that was sort of self referential in that I'm a cocky guy at the best of times and I've often assumed that some of my collegues know less about there trade than I do... and I'm still a student! The fact is that they are very skilled technicians, I haven't met anyone in a technical role who was incompetant because it would show and they would be ruthlesly replaced. I have no problem with Ravensbourne but I find there tends to be an attitude amongst students hoping to attend (and this is true for many other institutions) that if you graduate your guarenteed a job in the industry. I'm not saying thats yours or anyone elses attitude specifically but I'm sure you'll agree that its not true. My gripe with slandering British TV and film is this - its not the lack of talent but a lack of will and efficiency on the part of our organisations who produce our media. All are competing in a fierce and frankly tiny market. BBC dp's, camera operators, sound techs etc may not produce stunning HBO quality dramas but compare the budget between a series of the Sopranos and Life on Mars! As for the hating anyone under 30 thing, I would tend to agree. I'm going to grow a beard and dye my hair grey - that should get me some respect! I find the whole anti youth thing endearing really, its a coming of age thing that I've encountered anywhere I've worked particularly on a building site.

Hi Guys. www.dvuser.co.uk has a few articles about the FX1 that could be helpful. There are several buttons on the left hand side of the camera; shutter, gain etc. When you manipulate the Iris the camera compensates with adding or removing gain. By pressing the gain button on or off you are able to manipulate gain shutter and iris without one compensating for the other. Its pretty stupid but being a 'prosumer' camera I guess its just wired for amateurs. The F-stop is a fraction of focal length. To properly explain this would require someone far more educated than myself and a greater word count. A 70mm zoom lense at F2 would be 35mm at the diameter of the aperture (although apparently not always true). Lenses such as that on the FX1 are wide open at F1.6 with a maximum focal length of 54mm meaning the aperture would, theoretically, be 33mm or there abouts. I don't think the aperture is that wide on those lenses so they have a cut of point where the focal length continues to increase but the physical aperture is already wide open so the ratio between focal length and aperture diameter changes.

yeah, all other arguments aside when it comes to you/me the viewer its never great. Lets do something about it eh Phil? really though where would we get the money lol. I don't know how it is in the states and theres definately no apprenticeship system in the UK but there is some serious elitism in British TV/film. I always made a habit of asking how people got where they are and nine times out of ten it was because they had a mate down in HR. Still pay kudos to British talent its just hardly nurtured or exploited. I often forget that in the scheme of things we (Britain) are relatively insignificant. Even in the 60s Truffaut thought we were worthless fops.

I would suggest that the BBC's DPs work incredibly well under the circumstances they are provided with. They do have to scrap out a huge amount in a days work and the ever increasing attitude that digital requires less funding, thus less crew, thus less equipment hasn't helped matters at all. Some DPs who are notorious through their work with the beeb like Paul Wheeler BSC are very attentive tradesman who pay great attention to detail particularly through their manipulation of light. Many of the characters I have had the pleasure of meeting at the BBC, ITN, BSKYB and Channel 4 are infact very talented, knowledgeable and professional people. Infact they often have a problem with young, inexperienced, underqualified and frankly abnoxious people who criticise their work when they have no understanding of a real 'working' environment in television. This is not an attack on anyone who thinks they can do better but to my understanding time and money are a limited resource within a very limited British industry, DPs in the UK don't have the resources to compete with US productions so comparitively they may well seem inferior. As for Ravensbourne students, I've worked with several. 'Magic' at ITN (a Lighting Director) is perhaps the most educated man with regards all things TV I've ever met! Ravensbourne is not a special school for genius technicians it is an establishment which hopes to create them so to claim your work is better is a pretty empty statement because not every Ravensbourne graduate will get work, infact I don't know many that do. I've fallen into the trap of thinking 'I could do a better job' on several occassions in TV. For-instance I'm a terrible Jib Operator but despite the fact that I'm far more clued up on optics, colour theory, video engineering etc than the regulars I tend to work within ENG, they still produce far better work than most. To say because you know a bit about the PAL signal doesn't account for years of experience behind a camera... period! TOP GEAR IS THE BEST THING EVER... EVER! And check out the work of Sky sports camera operators, its as if the have precognitive senses. Beautiful Rembrant stlye cinematography isn't always fitting!

Sorry I probably didn't make it clear but I was refering to a 2/3" CCD SD camera.

"seeing as HD is going to be the norm relatively soon I thought it would be best to look at HD cameras rather than SD, but maybe that's a mistake (which is part of the advice I need)." Hi Tom Do you really need a HD camera? In reality it could increase the overall cost, not just for the camera but also the fact that you will need HDV Capturing and Authoring facilities. HD is far from a 'standard' at the moment particularly amongst low to no budget film makers. Having said that there is no harm in shooting 1080i with the XL H1 and down converting to SD in post but its not really worth it. The XL-H1 is a great camera yes but if you choose an SD option you might get more for your money. Negative (XL-H1) -non progressive frame rates (faux F(frame) function) -you could buy a 2/3" CCD camera for the same price -will you actually make use of the HD function? In your position I might be looking for something more along the lines of a Canon XL2. All round its as strong as the XL-H1 (less the HDV aspect) and it has a true progressive frame rate. The HVR V1E also has a progressive frame rate and is capable of shooting HDV but the XL2 is just better for reasons I can't explain and don't care to! Go XL2 you won't regret it and it won't break the bank. If you want to go HD later wait until the technology has evolved some more and the lower end stuff becomes more economically viable for a low budget film maker or enthusiast.

have the camera hand held in the van maybe?

it all sounds so easy huh?

I would hire an NTSC camera recording progressive or interlaced pal will be equally problematic. If your having trouble tracking down an NTSC camera hire a sony Z1, it is switchable between Pal and NTSC but it won't record progressive.

it wont be truly progressive but you can de-interlace interlaced picture in post. http://www.100fps.com/ should help

Hey Freddie. I'va had similar problems as I generally use a dsr 570 wsp or a Z1E. Have you considered that the 300 will only shoot in 4:3 aspect ratio and as far as I'm aware the shutter in the 300 doesn't dip below 1/100 (pal) or 1/60 (ntsc). The Z1 has a very slow shutter speed if you want it, I have shot with a shutter of 1/25 second but to be honest it didn't create amazing results. The cineframe function on the Z1E is amusing at best but its never going to produce true proggressive high quality images. The Z1E has 1/3" CCDs. The 300 has 1/2" CCDs. The 300 is much clearer particularly with a good lense on it. The 35mm adapter would help the Z1E but if the project doesn't require that look then its not really necessary. Just beware that the DSR 300 (Negatives) -shoots only 4:3 -has a minimum shutter speed of 1/100 but it also has (positives) -1/2" CCDs (allows for shallower depth of field) -and a better lense by the sound of it The Z1E (positives) -Has a very slow shutter for a 'film look' -is versatile and works nicely with a 35mm adapter -shoots 16:9 -can shoot high def and then down convert but it also has (Negatives) -1/3" CCDs -a very average stock lense I don't know if you need it but I would choose the Z1E simply because it will allow for 16:9 capturing. With a decent 35mm adapter I would shoot high def then down convert. That ofcourse is assuming you need a 16:9 aspect ratio and typically faux film look. If not then choose the DSR 300, the 1/2" CCDs with a good lens will outperform the Z1. My knowledge regarding the 300 may be flawed, I haven't used one for a while so please correct me if I'm wrong. Best David Bradley

Inland empire! watched it at a theatre last night, I thought I had passed out, hallucinated and then been punched in the face several times. It doesnt get any more david lynch than that. In all serious I want my 3 hours back, I'm just not 'high art' enough for that movie.

they should make a new section for these cat fights.

I would go for the Z1E again, its a great little camera. sony PD-170 perhaps The canon XL2 isn't bad either. panasonics AG-HVX200 is also a good camera. Could you be more specific as to what the uses of the camera might be. Will it be ENG interlaced video style? narrative film? For ENG or factual stuff he probably won't mind interlaced DV cameras in which case you could probably do with a the PD-170 which I have seen advertised for as little as £1800, this could also save you some money because its cheaper than a Z1E. If your shooting narrative your employer might prefer a proggressive frame rate for a more filmic look, in which case the canon XL2 and AG-HVX200 provide both inerlaced and proggressive frame rates. If he is looking to acquire in High def then go with the Z1E again, if he can push the budget up at all I would go for a Canon XL-H1 but in terms of features its not that much better than the Z1E. If he can afford more still then I would advise the JVC GY-HD200U. Its a progressive 3ccd HDV camcorder that can record in PAL (50i 25p) NTSC (60i 30p) and Cine style (24p). Hope that helps a bit

stephen. since your shooting for the web your footage is going to be so compressed that the overall quality of the actual clip doesn't need to be of a particularly high standard. How about an older second hand camera. Try a canon XL1, you can probably pick one up for less than $1500 and as far as camcorders go you could definately do worse. If your entire budget for shooting is only $2000 consider that after you've bought the camera your going to need a tripod, possibly some lights and media. Blasting your entire budget on the camera could cost you later in the production. if your budget can't afford to stretch I'd use a canon XM1, its a 3ccd camera that won't break the bank.

where did you apply? Been working vt research (ENG) since I was 18 and I didn't get there by going straight for that particular job, sure its point and click work but in the working world being an operator is a little high up the pecking order for people without on the job experience even if your probably better than most the chaps I have worked with! If your looking to be hired by a production house or company in the UK as staff or to be trained as a free-lancer then your never going to get anywhere by asking to be a camera operator. At your age, barely younger than myself! no one will take you seriously unless you have proven yourself capable in another, less desirable and possible more entry level position. I work free lance as a floor manager at ITN, on the merit of that I got work with BSKYB, QVC etc As your CV grows you find people are more willing to entertain your enthusiasm for a job you really want to do i.e. camera operating Be sure to show that you have goals and that your enthusiastic but also be aware that most people couldn't care less about your ambitions. They want you to do a job and if your good at it maybe they will trust you with more (better) responsibilities. I try to show enthusiasm for the company and their clients, perhaps the theme of the work you will be doing i.e. when interviewing for BSKYB the lady in Human resources doesn't know her focal length from her aperture but she will get that you love sport if you know alot about it and your enthusiastic about it. That said if you pass an interview you usually trail someone for a time who ultimately decides if your worth the trouble. A quick note on formats. If you have been working on DV and the company your interviewing for are shooting 16mm then don't rant on and on about you digital prowess... I did that and it was one of those, "don't call us, we'll call you" gigs. Do your homework on the company and pawn to their egos as if you love they're product.

thats a shame, why isn't it 24p/25p or 30p capable? I know its a bit old and its probably a really neive question but if it has a proggressive sensor why doesn't it operate at a practible frame rate?

so, a zoom lense consists of a back element containing the aperature and a front element containing the zoom. This is essentially like having a prime lense with an afocal attatchement only it can vary in focal length. The back element views an image that has increased in size and decreased in field of view as one zooms in. That makes sense, but how does the lense compensate for the loss of light as the field of view and the amount of light hitting the film plane decreases? Just yesterday I was dead certain that the 'f' in fstop represents Focal length and the stop number is a fraction i.e. 50mm lense at f2 = 25mm aperture diameter. Is this not correct and can someone just clarify, does an aperture compensate for a loss in light transmittence as a lense zooms in and less light hits the film plane?

Picked up a PD-150 today and started browsing the menu and noticed a progressive scan mode option. Is the PD-150 truly progressive?

If you have access to all that kit I don't think you'll need a film school. I always found theory was easier to absorb on my own and you can learn at your own pace. Try reading these books: Blain Brown - cinematography theory and practice Peter Ettedgui - cinematography; screencraft Paul Wheeler BSC - Cinematography/digital cinematography/high defintion cinematography and 24p This forum is good for clarifying specific bits of information you may be unsure about. Wikipedia can be useful for colour theory and optics.

bully (2001) Dir: Larry Clark Dop: Steve Gainer. Nothing really pushed the limits cinematographically about this film but the over all visual aesthetic suited the story well.