Sam Kim

f/Stops are used for Depth of Field Calculations.

T/Stops are used for exposure calculations.

I've never heard anyone explain it that way before. I've always just led myself to believe that if you have the option on the lens go by the T.

i've still never seen anyone who's of a younger generation mention footcandles but if evan says so.

Sometimes its a matter of working your way to the top, here on commercials D.O.Ps can start as loaders then move their way to focus pullers then to operators and eventually to D.O.P.

they would usually get taught by the guy above them over the years, i guess alot would be self taught. keep working on your own projects like ^ said. Do you attend a Cinematograpy school?

i go to school in SF but everyone here who goes into film making goes the indie route. if they go to LA they disappear or start from the bottom (which i might do). but i'm working on my own stuff. i try to do a lot of camera and gaf, besides a good DP needs to understand both right?

I have found lighting is a far better way to learn. Camera assistants work too hard and don't really have time to look around, or examine too much, or ask questions. (unless it's whatt kind of frap do you want from starbucks sir)

Lighting is like a game of horseshoes, as long as it's in the general area you're golden. This gives you a ton of time to eat a sandwich and sit by the dolly, while the grips and such run aroung and fine tune. I know what lens, filters, even what the "important" folks did the night before for fun.

I find most DP's most generous in answering questions or taking the time to explain something. An internship is all about experience. It takes years to learn all the gear, tecniques, ratios that work with different stocks and so on..... get your hands dirty in another department and get paid while you learn!

 

Chris

Chris,

I love lighting but I love being near the camera too. But, yes, I do find that when I AC sometimes I do run short on time to observe but I benefit by being closer to the DP and drill some questions and find out how they think.

sam

... the movie is not particularly grainy since I shot it in 35mm anamorphic and rated the stocks 2/3's of a stop slower than normal...

 

...interior scenes were smoked...

Curious, I've learned to always overexpose by at least 1/3 of a stop when shooting and I was wondering if there was a standard practice you apply to on that.

Also, when using smoke, I also noticed you did this on that small indie, under 1 mil $, a lot of blue light movie you recently shot, what kind of smoke are you using? I've used fog machines that were water based but I personally was never happy with the results. Do you use oil based?

what Storaro said really shook me up too when i heard it. it's not really possible to really have just one cogent definition i think because to each it might be a little bit more personal.

maybe being older and more experienced it means something completely different than to me who's young and see he two as the same. anyway, it just makes for a really good question to ask him when you do see him in person, right?

After reading the article in American Cinematographer and seeing The Black Dahlia on the big screen, I definately was routing for the veteran Zsigmond. It is such a beautiful display of 21st century noir cinematography while employing some of the most incredible crane work almost unending through vast sets. This is just such a classically beautifully shot film and I was honestly disappointed that Vilmos didn't walk off with an Oscar. Oh well, at least I was satisfied with Bebe's accomplishment with last years Geisha.

geisha was awesome! agree with you on that for sure!

When someone wins an award in your own professional field, it's probably best in a public forum to just congratulate them, rather then imply that someone else should have won.

that was a slap. haha. very well put sir.

You are part ASIAN! haha. Every time i look at your photo i think that but no info anywhere ever suggested it, so i always thought you were one of those guys who just looked the part! =]

Have you always lived in LA?

Maybe our warm weather makes us more mellow, I don't know, or maybe it's the Japanese part of me.

I've been asked by people if they could work as an intern under me, but it's only happened once, on "Akeelah and the Bee".

 

Basically, I ask the production about the possibility and they always tell me the same thing: an intern has to be part of some sort of school or union training program that is covering their liability so that the production isn't legally responsible in case they get hurt, etc. Also, since they are unpaid, then it has to be part of a training program or school program or else labor laws start to apply (like minimum wage, social security, etc.) But I think it's mainly the liability issue since the intern is not technically an employee of the production.

 

Otherwise, I'm always ready to give advice to anyone that asks.

That's sort of a bummer. I've always believed the best way to learn was to be there and to do with someone. Sort of a mentoring environment. I guess it just means you have to do all indie stuff and then come back here to ask the millions of questions that comes up. hahaha.

Is there ever a situation where you take on an apprentice and get them a very entry level job on a set?

Academy of Art University = Trade/Technical emphasis for future commercial filmmakers

SF Art Institute = Emphasis on the aesthetics, experimentation, art and theory of films and filmmaking.

SF State = Mostly theory and lecture based with some production once you become a grad student.

I go to state and if you're smart you can get take three semesters of production courses (you have your pick, by lottery, amongst editing, directing, cinematography, sound, opitcal printing, documentary etc). State has a lot of theory courses too (we have Bill Nichols, a pioneer in film theory studies, after all) but we're not limited to that.

J Bowerbank is correct in calling Academy of Art U a trade/tech school. The masters program there is actually really good from what I hear however it focuses on being hands on. An online MA degree won't do much unless all you want to do is teach in the middle of nowhere university. Cinematography is a hands on technical art. Being somewhere physically is the best benefit.

If you want to do it online though, just don't get rid off. Dont' pay $2000 for online tuitiion and then $500 for books and supplies when you could pay $50-$100 for a book that teaches much of what you can learn. If you want to learn cinematography do and fail a lot. You learn a lot doing that. =]

Is there anything you recommend to those who want to practice it but don't have the big bucks to get all the fancy lights and equipment?

I love cinematography, I love discussing it, and I love teaching it.

of course it's possible you just have to accept the loss in quality like stated by everyone. BUT, your point was that this is a great way for beginning cinematographers and you're absolutely. some film schools will have telecine machines which is a real added benefit. so yes, great way just understand what you're losing. for some films it might actually be better depending on what mood, lighting and color your going for because at the end of it all it's not good enough just to look good... it must serve and compliment the story.

Does anyone know if DPs still take on apprentices to teach the light and dark side of cinematography? Visions of Light and the new Cinematographer Style mentions DP taking people under there wing but I can't help but wonder if this is still the way it's done.

after shooting negative stock what stock does it get transferred back to? I never realized this. Every time I shot something (50D 500T 250D) I never questioned this, just assuming I was seeing what I shot on, but I've never shot on reversal except for once when i hand processed it.

Did you see it projected in the theater? Otherwise, how do you know what 5247 looks like?

Thanks for taking the time to see it.

 

We've had some major cinematographers post here now and then (Rodrigo Prieto, Remi Adefarasin, for example). I started posting here way back in 1998 or so, I think.

What makes you guys want to though? I love that you give back but why?

I go to SFSU and had optical printing last semester. I wanted to do this too however I ran out of time (19 units, a part time job and working on film crews will do that to you). However a class mate, the Optical Printing, Avante Garde, Experimental film genius, did just that with 12 squares. 3 rows of 4 columns. All he did was create a mask with tapes and repositioned everything. We have JK-105 Printer which allows for zooms, rotation of the projector, and 8mm orr 16mm film. So yes, it's possible but it takes a long time and you just have to really preproduction it out.

Personally, I <3 Optical printing.

Ok, everyone. I never have used an optical printer before, but I am familiar with the basic idea and could gain access to one at my uni (and also technical assistance for basic workings with the OP). What I want to accomplish is this: If one were to divide the 16mm frame into three columns and three rows I would like to optically print one frame of super-8 film into each one of the nine squares. I chose super-8 because I think it would ease the pressure on the optical printer to shrink the image because it would already be using a smaller one. Is it possible to shrink the super-8 frame down the neccesary level? Is it possible to accurately control the placement of the super-8 image within the 16mm frame? (maybe with some sort of matte?) I realize that this could probably be accomplished much easier if I were to just telecine the super-8 footage and do the manipulations in a computer, but if it would be possible to keep the process entirely on film I would prefer attempting to do that. If there is somewhere else, better, that I could ask this please let me know as well. Thanks, all.

 

Liam

i don't think it's a hoax, more like just really big grandioso marketing that makes you want it. personally, i wait in anticipation because i lov tech and because it'll happen one day. why not the red?

well deserved, but i was hoping Children of Men, Emmanuel Lubezki, would win. BUT still well deserved.

I was wondering if anyone knows of DVDs that have commentary more the cinematography than anything else? I've never once listened to one that had it. Anyone?

Are foot candles still used for measurement?

"lightyourvision", please edit your Display Name to a real first and last name, as per the forum rules. You can do that under My Controls, thanks.

 

I memorized the old rule "100 ASA and 100 footcandles at 24 fps = f/2.8" but you could also memorize the same rule but with 200 footcandles and f/4.0, it's the same thing.

 

From that, you can figure out an unknown value if you know the others, i.e. at 200 ASA and 100 footcandles at 24 fps = f/4.0, etc.

 

This is why if you learn that some old 3-strip Technicolor movie in the late 1930's, which were usually shot at f/2.8 on interior stages (basically wide-open), was using around 1,000 footcandles, then the effective ASA must have been near 10.

WoW! super cool. It's so cool to have this website and see (sort of) people achieve and grow. pretty neat.

Saw the film yesterday and enjoyed the cinematography. I had no idea it was Texas but it sure made me want to go there. The magic hour, beauty shots were right on and I couldn't help but think that all the lighting accented and helped the story very nicely.

You make an awesome contribution by being on this site so much.

Is anyone else on this site ASC?

Though most of the reviews don't mention me, I came across two references.

 

Premiere Magazine's review said:

"Of course, Texas doesn't usually look as gorgeous in reality as it does through cinematographer David Mullen's lens, either. These movie-manufactured qualities are keys to serving the story."

 

And the Austin Chronicle said:

"Shot in stunning widescreen by the Polishes’ longtime cinematographer, M. David Mullen, Audie and the others are frequently backlighted to achieve that certain heavenly glow."

I knew something visual was what I wanted upon graduating HS in 2000. I went into broadcasting and jumped right out. Mulled around until working with kids and computers and finally came back to film, fell in love with the visual aspect. Realized DP not Dir. was what I wanted to pursue at the beginning of 2005. I was 22 at the time. Applied myself as much as possible. I'm a right handed kind of guy. Surrounded and appreciated the arts but never realized I'd want to pursue. Exciting, and slightly scary.

Anyone have tips for practicing?

if you're a student check out mac on campus. they give decent discounts and i just picked up a new sekonic 758 cine. but there's no need to get such an expensive one unless you need all the functions. picking up a used one from someone you trust might even be worth it (like a cinematography student who wants to upgrade their light meter).

try to get something with a spot meter. it's convenient and will really help you out in the long run. you use the incident for the majority and spot check with a spot meter to check your shadows and highlights.

I'm definitely interested. I'm sending you an email.

Just found this site and I'm loving it!

Children of Men.

Hands down blew me away.

!!! FIRST POST !!! Great site everyone.