Matt Read

Cale, My advice would be to do three things. First, try to place the lights to minimize their reflection on the window. Depending on which direction you will be looking into the window from, the placement of the lights and the desired look you wish to achieve, try placing the lights either extremely high or extremely low. Second, get a polarizing lens filter. You will lose some light, but it will also dramatically cut down on reflections. Third, spray some hairspray on the window. This will give the glass a matte look, rather than the normal glossy. You will still be able to see through just fine, too. Also, as Chris mentioned, have your AD schedule extra time for this shot, as it might require several takes to get everything right. Finally, during all this don't forget about your own reflection and/or shadow. It would be terrible to watch the dailies and find that there are no lights reflecting off the window, but there is a giant reflection of you and the camera.

American Cinematographer interviewed Roger Deakins when "Jesse James" opened in theaters. He gives a full explanation of exactly how they achieved the vignetted look here. It's the last question on the bottom of the page. On a slightly unrelated topic, I completely disagree with Thomas's post about tunnel vision being the future of cinematography. First of all, the tunnel vision Seung Han was referring to is something completely different from what you are talking about. Secondly, IMAX theaters are few are far between compared to standard theaters. Theaters capable of projecting images as you describe would require nearly total renovation of existing theaters, as well as a decrease in the number of screens per venue or dramatic increase in the size of the venues to maintain the same number of screens. On top of that, IMAX film and cameras are extremely expensive. Digital cinematography has not yet reached a point where it can record images of quality comparable to IMAX film. The cameras themselves are extremely large and cumbersome. From a strictly financial standpoint, what you discuss is not feasible on a mainstream scale in the foreseeable future. It would cost too much to convert all our existing systems to support a new system as you describe. Let's not forget that the people that run the movie industry are business people. Why spend a whole bunch of money when what they're doing now is making them plenty of money? From an artistic standpoint, I would think what you describe would be an unattractive option to most cinematographers. The system you describe would do away with the concept of the frame almost entirely. Throughout the vast majority of art history the frame has been a tried and true method of composing images, whether the medium is paint, still photography or cinematography. To do away with it or create a sort of fuzzy, organic edged frame would represent an extreme paradigm shift within the artistic community and society as a whole. Also, I get annoyed when people say that current widescreen formats "cut off the tops of trees" or "you don't have to built a ceiling on the set." This is completely untrue. Widescreen formats are entirely capable of showing the tops of trees or a ceiling, it simply requires that you use a wider lens or move the camera back. Spherical formats are equally capable of cutting off the tops of tree or not showing ceilings. In fact, if a widescreen camera were to be placed so that the tops of trees were being cut off and then the camera replaced by a spherical lens camera, using exactly the same focal length lens as the widescreen camera, the tops of the trees would still be cut off. Finally, let's remember that people are quite happy with the way they view films now. Yes, people do go to IMAX film occasionally, but no one laments the fact that they can't see "Confessions of a Shopaholic" on an IMAX screen.

David, is slightly overexposing and printing back down a fairly common practice? How much overexposure are you talking about? I notice in most 16mm student films that the colors seem more desaturated and lower contrast than in a professional film. Is this because the student cinematographers aren't overexposing and printing down or is it something else like improper exposure during production or getting a poorly timed print/telecine?

Here's a quote from the FTC: "Legitimate job placement firms that work to fill specific positions cannot charge an up front fee." Film-connection is a scam. End of discussion.

Also note that "Jason Katz" and "Moe Hawke," who both give film-connection glowingly masturbatory reviews are first time posters and have consecutive member numbers. Clearly these are not real people. I mean, Moe Hawke? Like mohawk? Worst fake name ever. A quick check on IMDb shows that there is no "Moe Hawke" credited with producing, writing, directing or editing anything at all. Of the three IMDb results for "Jason Katz" none have done credited work in the past two years and only one has "camera department" credit, which comes from a short film, which he apparently did everything on (including acting) and a whopping three episodes of Howard Stern on demand, not exactly the type of work most people are hoping to get. Can we get an admin to delete these accounts? Clearly, this film-connection thing is a scam. As has been pointed out, you should never have to pay to get work. You might have to work for free a few times, but you should never, ever have to pay.

Thanks David. That's really interesting. It's always great to get some real-world tips from the pros.

From my understanding, RED has created a new codec that is more efficient than MPEG-2 while still using a red laser, so you can get 4k footage of a decent length on a standard DVD disc. However, like most of RED's creations, this is not compatible with standard, commonplace hardware. You have to buy more of RED's equipment for this disc to work. This means that you would not be able to play a RED-Ray disc in a standard DVD-Video player because it would not understand the codec RED-Ray uses; you would need to buy a RED-Ray player. Basically, RED has created a new format that just happens to use DVD discs. No other DVD technology is compatible with RED-Ray. While the disc used for this is technically a DVD, it would not be referred to as a DVD because it is not compatible with DVD-Video technology. Even RED call it RED-Ray, not DVD. When people use the term "DVD," they are usually referring to the DVD-Video format, rather than the physical disc itself. That is why I said DVDs only play standard definition video. While you can put HD footage on a DVD disc, there is no possible way to play it on a standard DVD-Video player that most people have; it would have to be formatted as a data disc and the media played as a file on a computer (in which case it would be easier to just put it on a thumb drive or other portable memory device) or use the RED-Ray codec and be played on a RED-Ray player (which about 2 dozen people have). HDV does use MPEG-2. The difference between HDV and DVD-Video is the bit-rate and resolution. If you wanted to put HDV footage onto a DVD-Video, you'd still have to trans-code the video to the lower bit-rate and resolution of MPEG-2 that DVD-Video uses.

I would splurge and go with an HVX over a GL2 or a DVX. Nobody's going to want to shoot on SD in a few years. The HVX will be useful to your students longer than the GL2 or DVX. Plus you can shoot SD or HD on the HVX, so students without the hardware for editing HD footage can still use it. The HV30 also seems like a decent HD camera to consider. Don't forget about a tripod either. As far as lights go, stay away from china balls. They are cheap, but they can get broken easily. You'll end up spending $10 to $20 replacing either the bulb or the actual ball once a week and I'm sure the higher-ups at your school wouldn't be too happy with that. China balls are cheap enough, that if you students really want them, they can easily afford to buy a few themselves. Frankly, I'd just buy some work lights from a hardware store and some 500w photofloods and a few light stands from a photography store. That's all your students will need and it's cheap. You can then have extra money to buy a Road Rags kit and a few C-stands so your students can shape the light. Definitely remember to get a decent mic, boom pole and XLR cables, otherwise your students might have a great picture, but no sound.

This is actually not true. DVDs can indeed record HD, all be it alot less video. Now find a DVD player that can play HD out into a HD cable...The only thing you'll probably get is a Blu-Ray player with Standard DVD capabilities (that might be able to play back the HD into the HDMI cable). The format you record to (Blu-Ray or Regular DVD) have no correspondence to the codec actually put on them. Andrew, I am not incorrect. Playable DVDs, also called DVD-Video, (ie will play in a stand-alone DVD player) use only the MPEG-2 codec for video. You can create a video using a different codec and import it into a DVD authoring program, but it will always be transcoded into MPEG-2 before being burned to the DVD. Audio on DVD-Video can be encoded using PCM, MPEG-1 audio layer II or AC-3. It is true that you can put non-MPEG-2 files on a DVD, but you can only do this by making a data disc. The video on the DVD will not play - or even be recognized - on a stand-alone DVD player, only a computer, where they will appear as files. This is similar to how you can put MP3 files on a CD, but your stand-alone CD player can't play them. Blu-Ray players read three codecs: MPEG-2 (to be backward-compatible with DVDs), H.264/MPEG-4 and VC-1. If you were correct, then DVDs released using a new codec could not be played on older DVD players because they would not recognize the new codec and have no way to be updated. People would constantly be buying new DVD players so they could watch the newest DVDs. Check out the Wikipedia article here for more.

I'm fairly certain that Photofloods are still being produced. You can buy them at the B&H website here.

I saw in some documentary that there was only one cinematographer that some classic Hollywood star (I want to say Greta Garbo, but it could have been Dietrich) would let shoot her. She was always lit at least one stop brighter than everyone else around her. Another old Hollywood trick was to stretch pantyhose across the lens. You can't see it, but it softens details, like wrinkles. I've heard that a thin layer of vaseline rubbed on the lens softens the image too. Besides that, soft light is always good. A rim light also helps make people stand out from the rest of the shot. There are also a variety of lens filters that you can use to help make images softer and make wrinkles or other age giveaways less obvious.

Your decision will depend on several factors. The most important is, can the system you will be editing on handle HD footage? HD files are big, requiring several GB of storage for even a 10 minute film. The specific amount varies depending on your resolution and frame rate. MiniDV on the other hand, uses much less space and requires less processing power and RAM. Another factor will be what format you plan on finishing your film to. DVDs can only record and play standard definition (SD) footage. Blu-ray discs can record and play HD footage. HD footage will have to be compressed down to SD to be recorded on a DVD, which means you will lose the extra resolution of your raw HD footage. This isn't bad though, as it will still look good. SD footage will have to be up-res to HD to be recorded to a Blu-Ray disc. No matter how good your equipment is, this will never look as good as footage natively shot in HD. If you want to finish to DVD only, then you can shoot on MiniDV or HD. If you want to finish to DVD and Blu-Ray or just Blu-Ray, then you should shoot on HD. If you only plan to exhibit your film online or from a computer, then either format is fine. As far as convenience goes, I don't think MiniDV is necessarily more convenient than HD. MiniDV has to be captured to a computer in real time for editing. If your HD camera records to a card and not tape, the footage can be transferred from card to computer in faster than real time. Most prosumer HD cameras are not significantly larger than MiniDV cameras, so they would not be more of a hassle on set. Finally, most HD cameras will record colors better than MiniDV cameras. They will at least record at the same quality. And with the extra resolution of HD, even if they aren't actually recording the colors better, it will look like it. Bottom line, if your editing system is setup to handle HD footage, then you should shoot HD.

Thanks for the feedback, Ryan. I will definitely be adding more work to the reel as soon as I can. Thanks for the advice about GoDaddy.com, too. I'll be sure to look into that. Does anybody know what an editor's reel would look like? I've seen a couple job postings on Mandy.com asking for one. I assume it would be complete scenes or segments of projects, but I'm not sure and would love to know. Thanks.

I've just finished putting together a cinematography reel. I'd love to get some feedback on it. http://vimeo.com/1622333 I'm currently working on a website and will eventually host the reel there. Also. does anybody know of a cheap web hosting service that I can use when I finish working on my website?

Since you don't have the budget to make a cloudy day into a sunny day, why not make a sunny day into a cloudy day? Go buy a couple cheap white sheets and use them and some C-stands (or whatever, really) to build a tent around the windows. This will diffuse the light from outside, just the way clouds diffuse the sun on a cloudy day. Just make sure that you let your windows blow out some so you don't see the sheet outside. You'll probably want to do some tests to see how far away you'll need to make your tent. You might end up just needing to drape the sheets over the windows fro the outside and not have a tent at all.

Daniel, overall it looked pretty nice. I think the run time worked really well. Short and sweet. My only criticism is that is looks like it's taken from a very limited number of shoots. Your resume shows that you've worked on a sizable number of projects, but I don't see that in your reel. Also, I'm looking into getting my own website setup. How did you go about doing yours? Did you hire some one to design and build it for you or did you do it yourself?

I agree about shortening the reel up. Also, I'm not sure that I like the use of multiple music tracks. It brings too much attention to the music, when what you really want people to be paying attention to is your cinematography. I'd seriously think about excluding the bit of music from "Requiem for a Dream;" it instantly makes people recall that film and the way it looked. This will either make them think about that film and not your cinematography and/or it will make them compare your cinematography to the cinematography from "Requiem."

Randy, overall, you've got a really nice reel. It does feel a little long for my tastes though. Maybe try cutting it down to around 2 minutes instead of three and a half. Other than that, I agree with Garret that you should try to host the video yourself, rather than have it on YouTube. At the very least, put it on Vimeo, which doesn't compress video nearly as bad as YouTube.

Based on your resume, it looks like you've DP'd lots of shoots. I didn't see that reflected in your reel. It looked to me like you had stuff from five or less shoots in there. Also, in your still photography, in the "Other" section, picture 10 doesn't load. I've been thinking about making my own website some time soon. Did you design your own website (if so, did you use software to design it?) or did you hire some one to build it for you? Where do you host it from?

MATT (in Spanish) Just note the language the character is speaking in parenthesis below their name and above their lines. Like this.

Jim, I don't understand why you would do this, especially when you are chroma-keying the background. It seems like it would take a whole lot less work to just keep the camera level and get the framing you want on your subject while ignoring the background (since it will be replaced later). Then in post you can matte off the parts of the background that are not green/blue screen and apply the chroma-key. Your new background would replace not only the green/blue screen, but also the matted off areas. This seems like it would be much easier than rigging the camera at a 90 degree angle and then rotating the image in post and having to deal with render issues. Is there something I'm missing here?

If I'm understanding you correctly, it should work as long as you have FCP version 6 or higher. If you're working with an older version, you'll have to render all the footage you import because your timeline and footage won't be in the same format. In version 6, this isn't a problem. To avoid any problems with interlacing, shoot in a progressive format like 25p. The only problem with what you are doing is that, unless you are finishing to an HD source (i.e. a Blu-Ray disc), you are going to end up compressing the image back down to standard definition in order to finish to DVD. That means that your attempt to preserve resolution by using a 720p timeline in FCP will be pointless. You'd be better off just keeping the camera level and framing for a vertically oriented 4:3 frame when shooting and then adding in a matte in post. It'd save you a lot of time and effort.

Wow, you're wide open? That tells me one of two things. Either you've got some weird settings going on in camera, or you need more light. Write down what your settings are now (in case you want to go back to them later) and then go back to the default settings. I totally agree with you about the 0db of gain and 1/48 shutter though. I don't think the tota was a very good choice of light for this. What it's doing is not lighting the set, but rather being a fill light. When I say light the set, I mean a streaks of light on the wall or a square of light (ostensibly from a window) somewhere. Don't worry about the light actually coming through a window. You're audience won't be able to tell. Just make it look like it could be coming from a window. A couple streaks of light going across the background behind the cowboy hat guy (you) would have helped to make him stand out. When I say light the set, I don't mean an even wash of light. Think of it as a key light for the set. You don't have to light everything, just enough so that the audience knows what's going on. Why can't you gel the softbox? You could put the gel on a c-stand in front of it. This would definitely be a great place for a backlight. But don't get hung up on rationalizing where the light comes from. Just put it there because it makes your image look better. I guarantee that 90% of your audience isn't thinking about where the light is coming from as long as you're telling a decent story. Just stick a light right behind him and as low down as possible. I think the problem with your lighting is that your are trying to do everything in broad strokes. You lit the entire scene with one lighting setup. While this will save you time, it will not get you the best looking image you can get. You should have a general lighting plan for each scene (i.e. the key comes from this direction, my key-to-fill ratio is X:Y), but you should really be having a new lighting setup for each camera setup. Do your master wide first, then move into mediums and close-ups. Plan the order that you will be doing these so that you will have to move the least amount of lights when you change to a new setup (i.e. do everything on the stairs, then the stuff at the bottom of the stairs, then the stuff at the doorway). And don't be afraid to use your worklights as well. Lights are lights. You'd also probably benefit from some homemade flags, diffusion and bounce-boards. Thick, black, flame-resistant fabric stretched over a PVC or wood frame for a flag, a white sheet for diffusion and anything big, flat and reflective or white for a bounce-board. You'll probably want to buy some clamps (not C-clamps, but alligator clamps). You can get this stuff from a fabric store and a hardware store. C-stands would also be a good investment or you could rig up your own. I don't want to be a bastard, but I don't agree with this at all. This is just another way of saying "we'll fix it in post," which is just another way of saying "I don't want to do all the work now, so I'll cut corners and let someone else deal with the problem later." A cinematographer's job is to get a good looking image. Part of a making a good image is limiting clipping and preventing noise. Having clipping and noise is bad at one extreme, but having a super low-contrast image is bad at the other end of the spectrum. Preventing one problem, but causing another is not a solution. Even if you have the best post workflow ever, there's no excuse for not getting a usable image during principle photography. What happens if your post arrangements fall through after production wraps and you're stuck with low contrast images and no way to fix them? Relying on post is just asking for trouble. Post should only be used for fine tuning or doing things that would be impossible during production. I also disagree about how a post-heavy SD workflow won't result in image degredation, particularly when you are working with miniDV. The format just doesn't record enough information, especially color information, to support heavy manipulation in post. (An HD to SD-finish workflow is much better setup for heavy manipulation. HD records more information (in terms of resolution and color) than miniDV, so any post image manipulation will degrade the image less initially and then down-resing to SD (which you have to do when you burn to a DVD anyway) will hide virtually all additional imperfections.) If I may suggest, go out and buy Reflections: 21 cinematographers at work by Benjamin Bergery and read it cover to cover. I read it and it totally changed the way I go about lighting. Really, really great. Keep the questions coming. I'm glad I can help.

You should be able to use your camera's full latitude no matter what the settings are. Like I said, it's really all a matter of controlling your fill light and setting a proper exposure on the camera. What it looks like you've done in these three pictures is try to make your scene look like night by stopping down. Unfortunately, that only makes your images look underexposed. Here's what you need to do: First, light your set. It's a night scene, so probably not too much. Simulating some moonlight or a street light through a window should be enough. It's a matter of preference on how bright this light should be. Somewhere between two stops under and two stops over should be good. Second, bring in your actors (or stand-ins if you have them) and set their key lights. Like I said previously, for a night scene, setting the light somewhere between being a side light and a back light will keep your scene looking like night by not having too much light on your talent. Third, set your exposure on the camera. You said you were working with an XL2, so you might be tempted to do this without a meter because you can just look at the LCD screen, but that's a bad idea. Get a lightmeter and find out what your camera's effective ASA is (DV is usually around 300 ASA, but find out for certain. Call Canon if you have to.). Set the iris on the camera so that the key light on your actor is properly exposed. Fourth, step back and look at your scene. It's probably too dark still because you have no fill light. How much fill light you add is your discretion. The less you have the harsher (more film noir-like) your image will be. You could give the entire set a wash of fill light from a heavily-diffused and -scrimmed down light. You could also only give certain areas a bit of fill light by using barndoors or flags. Fifth, add in any other lights you care to add. Maybe a rim light for your hero or a random accent light on something in the background. If you go for the rim light, let it blow out a little bit and this will be your something completely over-exposed. If you don't want the rim light, a reflection off a gun or a window will probably be providing your over-exposed area already. I know that you are stuck doing it now, but in the future, never depend on your post work-flow to get the look you want, especially with video and especially when you are trying to brighten something on video. On film, you've got to preserve your blacks because once the film is exposed, you can't stop light from passing through it. On video, you've got to preserve your whites because once you've recorded something, you can't make there be more of it without introducing tons of noise. You'd be much better off having a raw image that looks too bright and then crushing the blacks in post. I hope that's helpful. Feel free to ask more questions. Best of luck.

All the images look a bit dark. There's too many shadows as well. I'm getting the feeling that I'm looking at an inner-city school rather than an office. I'd boost the overall amount of light or open up another stop. Also, I'd go for more top light. Offices are always lit by overhead florescents. Take a look at the TV show "Mad Men" on AMC or the office scenes in "Office Space" or "American Beauty." You might want to try increasing the contrast of your images. Your shadows aren't very dark and your highlights aren't very bright. A little bit more contrast will drastically improve the quality of your images. You will probably want to talk to the art department too. I've never seen offices that use chalkboards or have green paint on the walls. (Are you shooting in a school building?) Have them get some poster board of a more office-appropriate color and staple or tape it over the green paint. Go to Kinko's and tell them that you need a poster for a business presentation. Have them make one and then set it on an easel and use that instead of the chalkboard. There's some fuzzy focus going on in the fourth shot. It's also not level. I don't know if it's taken from the middle of a camera move, but if not, remember to always pull focus and level your camera. If I were you, I'd invest in 5-10 more china balls and some 500w photoflood bulbs for them and hang those from the ceiling as your key. Use your 2k fresnels as accent lights on the set and the Kinos as fill from near the camera. If they can be, I'd turn on the lights in the back room you see in the fourth shot. If not, that'd be a place to put one of those Fresnels set on flood and aimed at the ceiling. I'd also try to avoid seeing anything below the surface of the tables. The tables don't really look like something you'd see in an office, but if you only see their tops, they'll pass.