Patrick Neary

I sincerely apologize for posting an ebay link, but this was kind of funny... http://cgi.ebay.com/16mm-Motion-Picture-Mo...1QQcmdZViewItem

not only that, but you can mess with your frames in photoshop, print them out and take them into telecine to show exactly what you're aiming for- it's an incredibly useful tool- Also a good confidence booster on set, kind of like a really expensive viewing glass! And you'll have some nice pix for your photo album.

Hi there- "punch" is not a word i would use to describe a pro-light :) It sounds like your best bet would be a small, close to the camera light to provide an eye-sparkle for the close-ups (if that's what you're talking about) with foamcore or griff bounce for overall fill. You're probably not going to see any eye-glints in your wide shots even with a small hmi, but you can still use big sheets of foamcore or griff in a frame (or even shiny boards) for an overall soft fill from the skylight. let us know how it goes-

Hi- I was curious about what kind of coverage you shot for the judges chamber scene (in the second photo) and the changes you made to the lighting (if any) for the different angles- Also for the FAA scene in the gymnasium- thanks for posting these!

>I am trying something that no one has done before< hmmm, let me guess, a no-budget mini-dv feature ("I just bought and XL-2!") with a half-baked script about a recent traumatic breakup with a girlfriend, no funding and the Sundance issue of "Moviemaker" magazine tucked under one arm... ok, that was mean.

Hi- My experience would say a background in stills (8 years as a photojournalist) is critical, but that's just where i came from. It's certainly not necessary, you could make an argument that it's necessary to gaff or AC first, and many people do. That's one of the great things about this field, everyone brings their own history and interests to it, it's not like structural engineering or something where there might be a very narrow path to follow education-wise. But i would also think that anyone interested in cinematography would be drawn to stills as well, it's such a natural extension, or compliment to cine-shooting. and way cheaper.

i don't think his cheek is darker than the girl's shirt (at #2)! Maybe the #1 was supposed to be on the back of his hair? those pesky little number dots, always sliding around... that looks like a veerrrry nice new stock!

Hi- Wes Anderson's "Bottle Rocket" was shot entirely with a 27mm lens (if I'm correctly remembering some article by somebody that i read somewhere!) and it gives the film a great, cohesive look perfect for the film.

24fps on the camera looks great, as does 30fps (progressive). I did a multi-camera cooking show and we used 24p to give it a higher-end look, mostly taking away the game-show live look of 60i video. I thought the 30p also did this effectively, but we went with 24 which looked to me like a very clean, stable and dirt-free telecine from film. you'll love it-

:lol: heehee- calling the listings on Mandy.com "jobs" is kind of a stretch!

Hi- I've shot with both cameras, but never compared them side-by-side- I have to say that i can't imagine you'd be disappointed with the quality of the 900, it's really first-rate, and a bit more versatile camera. It seemed to me not quite as cumbersome or heavy as the 790. However, the menus of the 900 don't seem very intuitive to me (on my first 900 shoot, it took me, a second operator who had used the camera on several other shoots, and two B&S rental techs *with the instruction manual* just to figure out how to read information to and from the little set-up card...) It does get easier though. I'd love to have someone force a 900 on me!

Howdy- if your film is made up entirely of extreme close-ups, it should play pretty well on the "iPod?s brilliant, 2.5-inch color screen" (interestingly a 4:3 screen to boot- maybe they'll release a 2.35 letterboxed "Lawrence of Arabia" for ipod, wouldn't that be fun.) I don't follow the music business at all, and maybe it's not a fair comparison, but was the original ipod an incredible opportunity for independent musicians? I'm guessing not... Maybe if a filmmaker can exploit the limitations of the player, and crash through all the usual commercial distribution gauntlets, it might be an interesting new medium to play with- you sure wouldn't have to upgrade your cameras and post to HD!

hi there- actually with the scoopic the metering is not through the lens, it's a seperate little window above the lens, so you would have to change your asa dial with the addition of NDs (if all of your metering is with the camera's meter- which is kind of a crummy meter, by the way) You'd be better off with a seperate meter, and just set it to your "new" asa (in this case, 64 with the NDs on the lens)

howdy- we had something like that here several years ago- A terrible "Pepsi Girl" ad (remember her?) with lobotomy-girl wandering through a western set. It got to the point where the audiences woul groan and boo and hiss everytime it came up (it made the papers here too). One projectionist even took the time to scratch out the pepsi-girl's eyes in every single frame, the results were very artistic/scary :)

Hi there- Nikon primes are great lenses for the money- don't discount the series e lenses, they were lightly built, but some had great glass- I had a 135mm series e that i really liked, it was very lightweight and sharp as anything. Like any old lenses though, you'll have to just look at individual samples and see if they've been abused or not. All Nikon lenses are F mount. AI and AIS are just part of Nikon's evolving auto-indexing system, it's just mechanical linkage, and it shouldn't make any difference for your use, except that generally the AIS lenses are newer than the AI lenses, which are newer than the non-AI lenses. Not sure about what you mean about your converter/adaptor ( "Remember that no matter what, my relay lens behind the adapter will be a Nikon prime" )...maybe you could specify which brand/model adaptor you're using. hope some of this helps!

Hi- Among a lot of other things, it also depends on where you live! A commercial DP in Kalispell is not going to be looking at the same day rate as a commercial dp in Chicago.

hi there- 2Cs don't normally have an anamorphic finder, just the regular one that you can open and close. The 2C finder does have the standard screw-on eyepiece (just like the arri sr, s, m, bl, etc.) where the 2B had a non-removeable eyepiece (well, i guess you could pull it out of the tube if you wanted). look on the non-finder side of the camera, there should be a small inscription which says II-C or II-B.

>The only problem is that it doesn't fit< that's a pretty big problem. if you do a little searching you'll find a recent post from someone who also bought one and discovered the same thing. (if you go back farther, you'll find a LONG thread with everyone trying to figure out how a straight mechanical adaptor could possibly work with the XL1...it turns out, it doesn't) It baffles me that a company can make and market something like this which clearly is only good for macro work, if that. Didn't they try the stupid thing before they sent it out to market?

A 172 isn't significantly bigger, and most twins (that i can think of) would be even harder, if not impossible, to shoot out of because they are generally low-wing (with big engines in the way) and much less flexible for that sort of thing. And way more expensive to rent! There's a Piper Cub at the airport i fly out of that looks like the perfect budget aerial platform- you can sit in the front seat with the door off and have a much less obstructed view toward the front and out the side; much better than any cessna, and with the added advantage of being a "low and slow" flyer. Nature shooters occassionally use ultra-lights and powered parachutes, which in calm air give great views and smooth flying (see "Winged Migration" as a primer for budget, handheld aerial shooting!), but they always seem a little dicey to me, safety-wise. Andrew has a great suggestion about going out beforehand and sitting in the cockpit with your gear as if you were shooting. You'll quickly see the limitations, and be better able to design the shots you need within those constraints. Really all you can do at this level is just hope for smooth air and go for it. Shoot a lot and you hopefully will find a few small pieces that work.

Hi there- I've shot a bit of film and video "ghetto-style" from cessnas and other aircraft, and can say don't expect too much from it. Or more importantly, if this is for a client who's used to seeing wescam footage on TV (and is expecting that kind of quality) make sure THEY know this isn't the way to do it! A 150 is particularly limiting because of the wing strut, but you can get some unobstructed views straight out the side. Make sure your pilot knows exactly what you're going after before you go up. Use his/her charts to work out the subjects/angles/viewpoints you need. If you're using a bigger, shoulder mount camera, try to attach a heavy bunji cord to the top of the door frame (or any attachment point available) and hang the camera from it- just to help take the weight and float it, don't ever let go of the camera- I did this out of a Maule and it helped tremendously (as opposed to just shouldering the camera). You'll see that if the camera lens ever enters the slipstream it will be uncontrollable, so you have to keep it pulled in behind the door frame. If you're hand-holding a small camcorder, use the steadishot feature, float it with your arms (don't touch any part of the airframe) and *good luck* It helps to slo-mo the footage in post to smooth out the bumps a bit. Also using a UV filter and bumping up the contrast and saturation a bit in post helps counter some of the haze. A polarizer can help too, if you want to mess with that. Either way, tether the camera to you, and make sure you're tethered (seatbelted) to the airplane! One good burble could send an unattached camera out the door. A 150 is like a kite, and any little bit of turbulence will bounce it around. Check the weather. Flying in the mornings will usually get you better, smoother air, but sometimes that beautiful morning light can be problematic for aerials, depending on what you're shooting and what your intended effect is. Hope some of this helps, I'm sure there are a million other things- mostly enjoy the views!

hi there- I recently saw "You and Me and Everyone We Know" shot HDcam by Chuy Chavez and output by efilm and it was by far the best looking HD - 35 I've seen yet. Better looking (i thought) than the super-16 (which was a DI, right?) for "Hustle and Flow" Both are great films, by the way, so give yourself a treat and go to the theatre for some "technical research"!

my understanding is that 1099 work doesn't count toward union days (needed to join), that all of the work needs to be as an employee of a company, not as an independent contractor, is this accurate?

Kaminski is a brilliant cinematographer, but i thought the filtration was very distracting.

yes, whatever you do don't get the pina colada- it's NASTY!

hi- 35mm lenses are designed to cover the larger 35mm frame, so they certainly wouldn't vignette on a smaller super-16 frame. If it vignetted on super-16, it would look like you were shooting through a porthole on 35! As you probably already know, the 35 lenses are going to be a bit long-ish (focal-length wise) for 16. I think the widest S4 for 35 is 12mm, which isn't very wide for S-16.