Matt Read

It works basically like a bellows and allows you to create a focal plane that is not parallel to the film plane. It allows you to have multiple objects the same distance away from the camera, but not all of them in focus. It's not to be confused with a split diopter, which creates two focal planes at different distances with the same lens, both parallel to the film plane. The Wikipedia article explains more. Also follow the Lensbaby example pictures link at the bottom of the page to see some examples of what you can do with one. From what I've seen, they don't have the best optics and even the sweet spot is never completely in focus. I've never used one though.

Well, if you'd ever like to hire me, you're perfectly welcome to do so. :)

Brian (and everyone else, for that matter), you should read the American Cinematographer article about "Inception." In it Pfister and Nolan discuss how they wanted the dream worlds to seem the same as the real world, because dreams seem real when you are in them. They specifically steered away from the obvious choice of surrealistic cinematography. As Adrian said, with all the craziness of the plot, equally weird cinematography may have been too much for the audience to handle. I think they made a smart decision and in this case, perhaps unconventional decision, in going the "normal" route with the cinematography. I felt that Pfister did an excellent job creating unique looks for each dream level. The first level used blue hues and extreme high-speed photography, the second level was very warm and the third level was stark without much color at all and the last level was normal to begin with, but ended looking quite dark. They were very easy to tell apart and seeing a single shot from one you instantly knew what dream level you were seeing. Also, as a side note, I question the level of media literacy of the reviewer you referenced because I think the cinematography and production design had much more to do with differentiating the dream levels than the editing did. For the lay person, good editing is much easier to see (there's a new shot, there's a new shot, back to that shot, really long shot, etc.), but good cinematography and production design (good in this instance meaning coming organically from the story, not just pretty for its own sake) should become unnoticeable consciously, but still affect the way the audience sees the film. However, I will agree with you on the amber and blue lighting trend. To some extent, I understand why it is used; blue and orange are at opposite ends of the spectrum and therefore contrast nicely and blue has long been a color used for representing moonlight, while the orange represents tungsten bulbs and the two colors are therefore obvious choices for being used together to light night scenes. However, it has become overused (*cough* Michael Bay movies *cough*) and is now both boring and too distracting when not well used. Overall, I feel that "Inception" was no great leap forward for Pfister, but it did look great and the cinematography served the story well, and in the end, isn't that what any DP should be trying to do?

In that case, pick a different time of day, when the sun is higher in the sky. Assuming that your green screen is without wrinkles and hanging vertically, the sun should evenly illuminate it from any height in the sky, so long as it is in front of the green screen. The higher up the sun, the more it will be in your talent's peripheral vision. If the backstop is the type with three sides, you also might try hanging the green screen from a different side so as to make the sun to the side of your talent, rather than directly in front of them. Usually the simple solutions are the best ones.

I'm not quite clear on what you're asking. It sounds like you're talking about a light mounted on the camera. If that's the case, then in all seriousness, just turn the light off. If the shot won't work without fill of some sort (I'm assuming and hoping that's all you're using the on-camera light for), have a grip rig a C-stand with a bounce card or reflector off to the side of the talent and bounce some light on their face (and if you're running and gunning, just have the grip hold the bounce). If you're just talking about normal set lights blinding talent, changing the angle that the light hits them from can make a difference, i.e. raising or lowering the light or moving it further off axis.

And I was planning on working there despite that! Whatever was I thinking? Seriously, though, it was a real bummer finding out I couldn't work there because I was actually interested in getting in on that stability and getting Canadian citizenship eventually.

I'm a US citizen with what sounds like a similar level of experience and I was looking at doing something similar until recently. I actually had a job lined up at a camera rental house in Vancouver, but it fell through when they realized I wasn't Canadian (a friend had set me up with the job and I incorrectly assumed he had mentioned my citizenship and apparently the rental house assumed I was Canadian). They said that there was no way that the Canadian government would give me a work visa to work an entry level job as I would be taking a job away from a Canadian (they're pretty serious about protecting Canadian jobs). So that quickly shut down any hopes for getting an off set job. I also looked into the IA 669 camera trainee program. From what I understand, the program is closed for the time being. With the economy and production down, they aren't taking any new recruits. And it also seems that to get into the union with no experience, you have to go through the trainee program. As far as getting permanent residency, to qualify for it you need to have gone to school or worked in Canada for at least a year (but if you only have entry-level skills you won't be allowed to work because you'd be taking a job away from a Canadian) or have job skills which are in demand in Canada (which if you're looking for entry-level jobs, you don't). It's an unfortunate catch-22, you can't get work there without being Canadian, but you can't be Canadian without first working there. I don't know if things would be any different for you, being from a Commonwealth country, for your sake I sincerely hope they are. I don't mean to piss on your plans, but I thought it'd be better for you to find out all of this now, rather than after you've flown halfway around the world. If you're still serious about working in Canada though, I would suggest contacting Customs and Immigration Canada and find out more directly from them.

It's actually been over a year since I've used an HVX, but I seem to remember it only going up to 1080i. Is 1080p a new feature on the HVX-200a? I've only ever used the HVX-200. And Dustan, thanks for changing your user name.

I always like to use a shot list when possible. I find that taking the time to create a shot list in pre-production will save me at the very least twice that time in production (not to mention saving me confusion and aggravation). I also feel that going into things with a plan (even if I don't end up sticking with it) makes me look more professional. And I agree with Adrian that the actual act of creating a shot list can be a good way to get inside the director's head.

dmac, you need to change your user name to be your real first and last name, as per the forum rules. There isn't a definitive "best" format on the HVX. Each has its own pros and cons. Whether you are recording to MiniDV or P2 card (and what the capacity of your P2 card(s) is) will affect which format is best for your situation. From the standpoint of resolution alone, DVCPRO HD 1080i is the highest, though it will give you an interlaced image. DVCPRO HD 720p is the highest resolution progressive recording format on the HVX. Any shutter angle will give you some degree of motion blur, even a "normal" 180 degree shutter. How much is acceptable is a decision that is based on personal preference and the requirements of your individual shooting situation. Do some tests and find out what settings will work best for you.

Nothing is "real" in film. It's all fake in order to seem real. That's why we use lights and diffusion and flags, etc. Be firm with your director, tell him/her that if he/she wants it to be "real," then either the white walls are going to blow out or the actors' faces will fall into shadow. If you're shooting on a 7D, you can use the camera and take some stills to show your director what it will look like. You are the cinematographic expert on set, so it's your job to explain the realities of the situation to the director, not just to appease his/her every whim. However, remember that he/she is your boss and that if after you've said your peace he/she doesn't want to take your advice, you just have to go along with it. If, after you explain the situation and show some tests, the director still doesn't want to paint the walls, you are going to have to just light your set and actors entirely separately, putting more light on the actors than the walls. This will require a lot of flagging of light and will increase the time it takes to light each shot. Also explain this to your director.

Yanis, You need to change your profile name to your real name, as per forum rules. I think your best and cheapest option for the kind of software that you're looking for will just be Excel (PC) or Numbers (Mac). Just make a template with the fields you need.

Guys, thanks so much. That's exactly what I was looking for. I really appreciate it.

I'm going to be moving to New York City in a few months and will be looking for work. I'm wondering what the top camera rental houses are there. There's Panavision and the website for the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcast has links to several more, but it's hard to tell which of those rent to larger productions. Also, it didn't seem like any of the camera houses I found rented the newest Arri cameras. Out of curiosity, where do you rent Arris in NYC? Do you go through Clairmont in Toronto? Thanks in advance.

Yuck. That does suck. Thanks for posting this. I hadn't realized this was an issue with CMOS sensors. Just another reason why film is better.

Aside from all these other considerations, also think about the weight of the lens. I shot some stuff with the 7D last week. I was primarily shooting handheld and the camera was unmodified, no cage rig, just the body and the lens. I found it to be quite an awkward situation. Since the only way to see what you're shooting is on the LCD screen (the viewfinder is inoperative as the mirror has to be raised to continuously expose the sensor), you have to hold the camera out in front of you to see what you're shooting. The body itself is already quite heavy (at least for me; my previous experience with SLRs has been an old Minolta SRT-202) and I found it difficult to get steady handheld shots, even on a wide lens (around 35mm). Also, after barely an hour of shooting, my wrist started to hurt. So if you're planning on shooting handheld with this camera, I would suggest you look for the lightest lens you can find, so as not to add any extra weight to the camera and seriously consider building or buying some sort of cage rig to hold the camera. If you're going to be on a tripod most of the time, don't worry about it though.

Whatever the case may be, you can't simply crop off or add on part of the frame without affect how the audience perceives and feels about the image. The cinematographer has composed the frame within the confines of the chosen aspect ratio for a reason. That's not to say that cinematographers are infallible; certainly over the years there have been individual shots that could have been improved had they been shot in a different aspect ratio, but I don't think it would be correct to say that a certain film would be better off if shot with a different aspect ratio. Films are works of art and no art is perfect, otherwise a computer could do it. Just because you disagree with a choice made by an artist does not mean the choice is invalid. Try to understand why the artist made that choice and, if after thorough investigation, you cannot find a reason, then it may be that you have discovered a poor or unmotivated choice. But, returning to 2.40 again, there are so many other examples of when it has been a good and motivated choice, that it is impossible to dismiss it completely. As other people have suggested, it seems to me that your problem with 2.40 comes from watching movies on a 4:3 TV and seeing them letterboxed, especially since you say you want more on the top and/or bottom of the frame. I think the more you see 2.40 movies in a theater, the more you will be able to appreciate the aspect ratio. More so than other aspect ratios, I would say that 2.40 is meant to be seen in theaters. Even if you can't see them in a theater, watch some of the 2.40 films that have been mentioned in this discussion and go out and see new 2.40 films. Really pay attention to how the cinematographer uses the 2.40 frame and what's in it (or not in it) to tell the story. Try your best to ignore the letterboxing and tunnel-vision yourself onto the image. The more you watch and the more you understand, the more you'll appreciate.

You're not really thinking about what Tom said correctly. The cinematographer has chosen to compose a shot a certain way for a reason, and the aspect ratio he/she is using will affect the composition. An image composed for 4:3 is not the same as a 2.40 image that has had the sides cropped off. Consider this hypothetical situation. A cinematographer is hired to a film that is to be shot two ways, with an aspect ratio of 2.40 and an aspect ratio of 4:3. All other aspects of the film will remain the same. Same director, same script, same production design, same locations, same crew, same actors, etc. In all likelihood, the cinematographer would not choose the same camera position, camera height, camera moves, focal length lens or framing (vertical or horizontal) to cover the same action for both the 2.40 and 4:3 coverage. In fact, for the same scene, it's entirely possible that the cinematographer would cover it with a different number of setups for 2.40 and 4:3. It's not a matter of 2.40 showing more on the sides than 4:3, the aspect ratio can influence WHAT a cinematographer chooses to show. Take another look at the first shot from "The Parallax View" that David posted earlier (two guys throwing a third guy off of the Space Needle, framed to the extreme right, with a cityscape of Seattle filling the left 3/4 of the frame). If for some reason, Gordon Willis was to have shot "The Parallax View" in 4:3 instead of 2.40, for this shot he would not have simply kept the camera in the same position with the same focal length lens as it is when framed for 2.40. I would imagine that he would use a wider lens and/or back the camera up some, not to achieve the same horizontal framing, but to compose an image that gave the same sense of isolation that the original does. My guess is that there would be significantly more sky if Willis composed the same shot for 4:3; the people would still be framed to the right side, but they would be smaller (taking up less space in the frame vertically), but still occupying approximately the same percentage of the total frame area as in 2.40. This would all be done to keep the meaning of the shot the same. If you were to simply crop the 2.40 frame down to 4:3 (but keeping the people in the frame, obviously), it would not have the same meaning as it was originally intended to (which is why so many people, myself included, loathe pan-and-scan). So, to say that 2.40 shows MORE information to the sides than 4:3 is wrong; it simply shows DIFFERENT information in order to convey the same meaning.

I have an idea for how to do the crash in the same wide as the other driving shots. The key to this will be to keep the camera locked off completely and will also require you to shoot in the studio. Get all your other shots of the two guys in the car done first and get them out of the car. Set up some sort of makeshift greenscreen inside the car right in front of the seatbacks of the front seats and extend it to the sides so that the only thing seen through the windshield is greenscreen and part of the dashboard. You'll also need to paint two sledgehammers green as well as make two green shirts and pairs of gloves for two people to wear. You might want to consider replacing the windshield with a regular pane of glass (as real windshields are laminated glass and made to not send glass flying everywhere) and finding a way to secure it in place. Roll camera and have two people smash the glass from the inside of the car with the sledges. You'll want to be extremely careful with this and make sure whomever is breaking the glass is wearing plenty of protecting and that no one is anywhere near the front of the car. Then, clean up all the shattered glass. Get rid of the greenscreen and put your actors back in the car. Shoot them miming a crash. You might also want to shoot a clean shot of just the car before taking off the windshield, just in case you end up needing it. You should be able to composite the two shots together using the breaking glass shot as the foreground element and the actors as the background. If you keep the shot quick in the final cut it should be totally passable.

You shouldn't need to adjust the shutter angle at all. LCD screens show a continuous image without scanning each individual line like a CRT screen. Even if you play interlaced video, each series of fields will be shown instantaneously, rather than being scanned in, which is what results in the lines going across the screen. Your biggest problem is going to be properly exposing the LCD screen so that it won't be completely blown out. I have no idea how the 7D does its 24P video (whether it's a pulldown from some other framerate or some other process), but it should be a reasonable indicator of what you can expect to see on film. You can also use it to check your exposure of the LCD screen. It won't be 100%, but again, it should be a reasonable indicator of what you'll see on film.

That's just a series of long exposures (maybe in the one to two second range) taken using an SLR or some other still camera that have been cut together. In effect, it is much like stop motion, in that it is a series of still images shown in series. However, stop motion tries to create the illusion of smooth, realistic movement, whereas this video is much more stylized.

It looks like you were using some sort of diffusion on the lens (unless this was caused by your Red Rock adapter) for the table and candles scene. I'm not too big of a fan of that. It reminds me of a lot of '80s films and makes your images look dated. Some of the other stuff looks like your not getting a full range of brightness values (meaning a full gradient of exposures from completely unexposed (or black) to completely overexposed (or white)). It makes your images look flat. The shot of the girl by the bed looks especially flat, as does the profile of the man holding what looks like a net or necklaces. If those are supposed to be night, the way to shoot night is not to underexpose your entire image, but rather still retain that full range of brightness values, but minimize the amount of the frame that has brightness values above your set exposure level.

If they were green, then you might have a problem keying out just the green screen without losing part of your aliens. In that case, you'd want to opt for another color screen. The only reason that green is the predominate color used for chromakey screens is that it is the complementary color (opposite side of a color wheel) of "average" caucasian skintone and will therefore have the least chance of keying out part of your talent's face. If your talent were to have a different skin color (like green aliens) or you wanted to have some element of the foreground be green, it would be to your benefit to use a different color for your chromakey screen. In the case of green aliens, an orange-red screen would work best. But everyone knows green aliens are a myth. Real aliens are gray. Or 3-foot tall walking teddy-bears.

I'm amazed that no one has brought up any Westerns in discussing the 2.40 aspect ratio. When I think of that aspect ratio, the first films that come to my mind are Westerns. And no one has mentioned "Lawrence of Arabia" either. That aspect ratio seems like it was made for shooting the landscapes that are so integral to the look of these pictures.

Vincenzo, unfortunately I'm not aware of any prosumer HD camera that can change frame rate during recording. If you can, you might want to consider using a film camera for this shot. I know that the Arri S, Arri M, Arri SR2 (with additional speed ramp controller) and possibly the Bolex can all change frame rate while recording. You should be able to rent one of any of those cameras for less than $100 a day. As for removing frames one by one, this would be a time consuming version of what your editing program would do when you tell it to speed up the footage and you'll still be left with an image with not enough motion blur. The problem is not in how you remove the frames, it's how they were recorded. Normal 24 fps footage takes 1/48 of a second to capture an image. At 60 fps an image is recorded in 1/120 of a second. Because it's a shorter amount of time, the subject has less time to move and thus the image has less motion blur.