Gus Sacks

I, for one, am extremely excited to finally see the finished film someday. I regard it as a masterpiece as is, but to think it could be that much better...

Craigslist and Mandy have been good to me... I got some of my first paid jobs from there, and some freebies that got me connections that led to paid work. Even got my first feature through there. And, yeah, some cruddy jobs as well. And weird interviews that scared me away from jobs. But all in all I have to say it's been as good as it could be.

Haha! <_< Echeeemmm. I thought it was great. :rolleyes:

More stuff. Not color corrected... link: sorry - clip no longer available

Very cool. I believe I'll take advantage of that. Would I contact Maia or someone in the Tech Dept?

Just wondering if anyone's used them, or knows the look they'd give versus the other lenses they have there... I've used all of them, from Abel :) from the Cooke S4s to the Zeiss Super Speeds, the Optar Illuminas, etc and I'm shooting a S16 film in August that I'm looking for a certain look that I'm not sure I've found in those lenses, and frankly, I'm just curious - having recently purchases a Rangefinder to shoot stills on. So I was just wondering if anyone had used them or knows what's up! Thanks! :)

Well, that's great, Corey. You're doing what's best at the moment. It took me about a year of film school to realize how much money and time I was wasting (while working as an AC here and there) before I left about 6 months ago to work fulltime. Now I'm making a living DPing and Camera Teching and I've only been here two years. It can happen. Just work hard; you'll be fine.

Hah, I think you got bumped to 1st because all of the other 1sts they 'hired' weren't into the job - myself included ;) I'm sure you'll learn a lot about focus pulling, and low-budget shooting on that job. Best of luck.

I dig it. Funny I pulled on a few of those shots, haha. Really made me chuckle to see them. It's good timing; good pacing. I liked the lighting for the most part. I feel like here may have been one or two things I'd recommend removing, but I viewed this a bit ago and am falling asleep... But I'll bring it up again and check it out. Nice work.

The EX-1 is an even worse workflow nightmare than the HVX200 w/the P2 system. I'd recommend the JVC100, or the HV20 *possibly strangely enough.

Thanks, Jon... Steadi's name is Dave Ellis (David George Ellis on IMDB). Incredibly nice guy; I now consider him a friend, and excellent technician and artist. He was my A Cam Op as well. Couldn't recommend him enough. That took me like 45 mins to upload I think. ... Thanks, Walter. You're absolutely right. And in this context this was a few selects, no CC, and, frankly, fit in their specific parts of the film. Appreciated.

I loved shooting on the 3000 in AVCIntra-100. The HDX pales in comparison for me...

Claudio, I love your work and can really see this being a ground-breaking film, both aeshetically and by way of its storytelling. Your work is a real inspiration to me (and I'm sure many). And your site is really informative and excellent. Thank you for putting the calibre of work out that you do ! :) Gus

Hah, I wouldn't say it looks "videoish." The crushed blacks and the red-bias were an aesthetic choice, not the camera. You shouldn't be afraid of darkness...

Hey Chris, Thought I'd give you a little feedback... So the main issue I have overall is that I have no idea what this story's about. I know this isn't the film; it's just a montage of clips, but in general I should be able to gather the premise from 3 minutes of footage. I think it's about an alcoholic? There's got to be a little more information in the imagery... There's three other key things I think could really use work: 1. Lensing 2. Controlling Your Light 3. Movement, Blocking Up-front note: this is going to be a bit harsh, but I know you want feedback so I thought I may as well go for it. 1. Lensing On the HVX, when you use it in its widest angles, things look like absolute crap. I can only stand using it without a lens adapter that wide while doing cityscapes, etc, because otherwise it just distorts and is pretty grizzly. And at the same time it shows everything. The scene in the kid's childhood home, I'm assuming, just looks very clearly like a set, as does the weird loft (?) space. There's an unlimited amount of depth of field, even on the first few shots you put up. Walking back another 50 feet and dropping in an ND would definitely give you a much nicer image, and give the shot a little character. There are times when there's ECUs, and that can work, but the one of his mouth in particular didn't really work, from an operational standpoint. I'm sure the focus was supposed to be sloppy, but it can really be nice if you've got a good focus puller working with you. 2. Controlling Your Light There's light everywhere. And even when it's placed in a particular spot, it's either too hot or too dim. But that's HD. And it sucks; I know. But (and I'm sure you know this) HD's latitude (well, some HD, the HVX is one of them)is quite limited (about 4 stops), so you really have no room to guess when it comes to your levels. That shot of the bar with the girl wiping it down has the foreground with a tremendous amount of light compared to her, or the rest of the bar. It makes it less high-key and more low-con, and makes it look like a MOW. I can see a unit in his sunglasses at the bar, and it looks like you used a chimera, which you might want to re-consider if you're looking for a more selective, low-key unit. Some shots look intentionally brightened in post (muddy blacks), and you might want to crush them a bit. Like in the bar fight at the end, and the one in the beginning. The loft (?) situation has 3/4 shadows when he's walking around in that medium shot, and the spotlights are maybe 2/3 stop way over your clipping area. You should have your zebras on and should be checking them consistently. The whites on the checkerboard, his shirt, etc, are prominent, especially when you're shooting an African American or something in the midst of a black floor; it'll definitely pop. So use diffusion, scrims, duvey, nets, to just take all that down a little. You have to protect your highlights even moreso than your blacks. There will more than likely be information there, but not in the blown-out parts. 3. Movement I noticed sticks, handheld, and a dolly shot. The dolly shot was particularly awkward in the montage, when he's at that guy's loft. The handheld was all a bit fuzzy and disorienting; I'm assuming to show his POV once he's been drinking. But I feel like you could use them a bit better, and to your advantage. (this is all opinion based) But using it in the flashback with the Dad going nuts... I see a little bit of it, but it doesn't seem to have much energy there. In my opinion, the best thing about handheld is the energy it can bring to a scene, not just the way you can cover multiple shots in one or two takes... but even then, you seem to be doing static handheld. I think you could more than likely have run around a bit more in that bar fight and not stayed so profile on them (if you wanted to, again opinion), or in the bathroom with the mirrors, float around a little more, as to not just wait for him to turn the mirror. Considering how each piece of movemen will play into the film as a whole, not just the scene as a whole, can be a good thing. Either way, I liked a few things, definitely. The use of the mirrors in the bathroom was nice, the use of that lightbulb in the bathroom at the end was great (very pretty rim light and color temp). The opening montage of the streets is nice for us to get to know him, at least as a drunk. I'm guessing this was an SVA thing? Best of luck, Gus

It was shot on S16, 250D I believe.

Hey. We used the Pro-35 w/Zeiss Super Speeds. I'll see what I can do about the full res stuff. AVCIntra was fine dealing with it in putting together the clips. We haven't gotten to post yet.

I'm not sure I understand the application of the ND. You're lighting from the trailer, but you want to bring the driver/pass side windows down, but you're lighting frontal? I don't really understand... Either way, I would say put it outside so there's less a risk of reflections, etc closer to the talent. It'd be less noticeable behind the glass. Just use double sided tape and then paper tape the rest down.

I personally don't like the look 2/3" lenses give... So I'd still recommend a lens adapter setup. Just a personal preference...

The HPX3000 is great. The Angenieux adapter I've heard negative things about, but I know the Pro-35 costs around 30k. Either way, the workflow is there, the quality is there, and I believe it'll be the state of the art at that price range for some time.

I worked a few shorts for free (read: 4?) ACing on HD before I got my first job, which is still one of my best paid jobs, about a year ago... And I haven't done a freebie aside from shooting for friends (either on s16, 35, or high-end HD) since then. Good people aren't a dime a dozen, but there are those few you know when you meet them that they'll help you out in the long run and short-term...

High five. ;)

Saw it. I enjoyed it very, very much. One of the first films in a while where I really thought "Wow, that director really had immense vision, a lot of it helped shape the visuals as well." Normally I'll attribute a lot of that to the DP, but Tarsem seemed to do a lot of pre-pro before hand. Very cool. Highly recommended.

The only thing that made the HPX3000 not the best 4:2:2 camera ever was the inability to change frame rates... If this camera can do 4:4:4 via SDI and record on P2 cards in AVCIntra100... it seems like a great piece of equipment.

Thought this was interesting... http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/...s.ap/index.html