Mark Kenfield

Cheers Andrew, appreciate the suggestions! I've just stumbled across these locking-style corners, which are pretty reasonably priced (about $40 each, i.e. $160 for four corners), and would obviously hold things together rather more rigidly than the plastic corners (and knowing my luck that probably counts for something): http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/143579-REG/Matthews_409100_1_Corner_for_1_Square.html What do people think of those as an alternative? The matching ears are $60, which has me thinking that adding a couple more Cardellinis to the kit is probably a wiser investment.

What do you use for mounting Bunnings-style frames to stands Matt? Just a Cardellini clamp on either side?

What does turning everything off except the practical lamp get you? I'd start from there and add more as needed.

The Variety article explains pretty clearly that the production HAD established clear communication with the railway well in advance. The article says they were told two trains would come down the track that day, and in the unlikely chance that a third would it would signal it's approach with a whistle. The production waited for the second train to pass before beginning the scene on the track itself. Clearly things were not done as well as they should have been, but it doesn't appear to be a purely one-sided situation.

Thanks guys, sounds like a goer.

Hi guys, Looking into S16mm glass for a mockumentary style project, was wondering if people could share their thoughts on the Canon 8-64mm? The zoom range is perfect for our needs, wondering how well it performs and where it falls down. Cheers, Mark

The photometrics would change vastly depending on the fabric being bounced into or shot through, it would change depending on the beam angle at which a particular source hit it at, it would change depending on both the distance of the source from the diffusion as well as the distance of the diffusion from the subject. So I really can't see any real way to calculate precise luminance the setup would provide without testing it specifically.

Although I think a subscription model can work great for actually getting content produced (look at high-end cable, or the better parts of the BBC), I'm not so sure the margins for a lot of content on the likes of Netflix really add up financially (at least not from what I've heard - we don't have netflix down here to refer to). I really think the 'app' model is the way to go - no cost, or impediment to browsing or accessing the content, you just pick what you want to watch and click the 'buy' (or in the case of the streaming model, 'rent') button. It's easy, it's universal, and it puts both choice and access in the hands of consumers (which is precisely where it should be if you want people to buy or rent things). If the cost is low enough to entice the masses then I strongly believe that, all of a sudden, thousands of people who are currently downloading small pirated productions (because they either can't or don't go to the DVD store anymore - so don't have access to affordable rentals the way they used to) will have a quick, simple way to access content they're interested in. We don't have to break new ground here, we just need to adopt the digital delivery model that works best - and costs need to fall (the same way 'app' prices are a fraction of what proper 'software' used to cost). That's the new digital paradigm - Low-cost. High-volume. Build it, and they'll come.

It is very realistic to 'expect' production to have their own insurance. Unfortunately on many (if not most) so-called 'indie' productions, the producers don't take out any insurance. At any rate, I would certainly be insuring your own gear regardless.

I think it's a pretty common tale all over the place, but I think these days it's almost daft not to own something like a 2.5k BMC - it's $2000 and gives you 13 stops of DR, 10-bit ProRes/12-bit raw, an 800 ISO base, and proper manual control of your white balance and shutter angle. Pair it with a speedbooster and a set of the cheap-as-chips Rokinon manual SLR lenses, and you have a ridiculously capable setup for a ridiculously small amount of money. Getting caught up in the gear race is a slippery slope, especially since some other bloke is always going to have deeper pockets than you. But honestly, for 95% of the shots you shoot 95% of people aren't going to be able to tell difference between the little Blackmagic camera and one of the big boys. And given the price I think it's silly not to have one sitting in the cupboard ready to turn in great pictures when a budget doesn't allow for anything better. The low low price also makes 'giving it away' to a production a much easier pill to swallow.

A terrible, terrible tragedy. It was a legitimate shoot, with a highly experienced crew, and worked out around the trains' schedules well in advance. I think the lesson to learn from it is, in any similarly localised potentially dangerous situation, if something goes wrong, and danger starts approaching just run - drop everything and run. There isn't a prop or piece of equipment in this world worth injuring yourself over, let alone dying for. If they'd just left the bed and run straight away, they may have got far enough away from it to avoid this whole sad event.

Well if you can get some shear curtains or venetian blinds on to the windows to obscure the darker exteriors beyond the window, I'd say that should definitely be your starting point. Here's a recent night for day shot I did, the light had to cover the full length of a doorway, and about the same area again with the full-length window next to it (i.e. a similar sort of area to your 2 glass doors). These were done at about 9pm at night, with rain POURING down just 4 feet back from the doorway. The main source firing through the doorway a 1.2k HMI PAR bounced into a white umbrella, and the shear curtains on the right of frame were lit up by a 4-bank Kino Diva on full blast. Fill from inside the room comes from a second 4-bank Kino Diva and a 2-bank Diva. It's the brightness on that slither of bricks you can see through the doorway, and the glow coming from the shear curtains that really sells the look. If the door were just another inch further open, you'd see the blackness of the night that's right outside. If you don't have a way to cover/obscure the glass doors properly, then I'd suggest putting some white fabric outside the glass and blowing out the windows for a quick establishing shot - I'd then move in quickly for mids/close-ups and frame out the glass entirely if possible (or just leave slight hints of it in the frame. If you are able to bring in lights, two 1.2k HMIs would be best, one 1.2k HMI would be better than none, and a couple of Blondies would be a good cheap backup plan.

Do you really think you can get away with it with just those lights? For two large windows I'd have thought you'd want at least a 2k coming through each (or a 1.2k hmi). Some shear curtains pulled closed might help you get away with it, but I really think you need more light.

I think the sooner we see a fast, convenient and easy streaming service that allows people to 'rent' (i.e. stream) movies they're interested in for some small fee (for arguments sake, let's say $1 - because at that level, no one questions the cost) the sooner things will improve. Yes there are services out there at the moment, but they're not universal enough, and they aren't all easy to access (here in Australia for example, options are very limited). There are a great many films, probably the majority, that most people have NO interest in buying, even if they are interested in seeing the film. If a digital download is something like $7 to buy and $1 to rent, then you get to a level at which people aren't going to bother going to the effort of pirating - they click a button, their credit card gets charged a small fee, and they have instant access to high-quality content on-demand. That ease and convenience is a big selling point. But offering low-cost in search of high-volume has got to be the way forward IMO - just look at the 'App' market... it's clearly the model of the future for digital distribution. The market for content is massive these days - bigger than it's ever been. If we can offer a no-brainer way to get it in people's hands (and a cheap 'rental' option is probably the way to do that) then it could revolutionise revenue streams for filmed content.

I'm not sure how much stock you've got to purchase, but the cost difference between 2-perf and 3-perf could quite possible cover the additional cost of the Master Primes/S5is. If you need the extra stop of exposure, perhaps look into the Illumina T1.3 lenses - they're a lot cheaper than MPs/S5i and I've seen some lovely samples from them on Vimeo.

I've never had the chance to shoot on Vision3 myself (Kodak were still on Vision2 the last time I shot film), but from memory, I remember reading that it holds about 9 stops of overexposure latitude (which is HUGE!) - so I'd definitely recommend overexposing a little and pulling it back in the grade. I think it's a particularly wise move to make if you're planning a lot of low-key lighting setups - it'll give you a bit of a safety buffer with the underexposed areas of your frame.

You can also now get high CRI conventional CFL globes from Kino Flo, which are great for practicals and allow you to be a lot more precise colour-wise.

Great, well the recipe for it is simple, just a small hardish source dimmed way down. Diffusion was on the panel itself, mainly just to cut down on the multi-source nature of the LEDs.

Here's one example: Is that the sort of look you're after? The edge light is coming from a mid-sized soft source some distance away, and the fill on the frontal side is entirely from the one lightly diffused Z96.

I find that to create those specular highlights you need a fairly small, hard-ish source. I'm not sure make-up is quite so important (though obviously any moisture/sweat on the actor's face will exaggerate the effect). I get a pretty similar (and I think effective) result by using a little Z96 LED panel with some light diffusion to provide the fill. It's a small and hard enough source that you get the specular reflections, and being able to dim the panel way way down keeps excess spill and unwanted ambient light out of the equation. I'll post up a sample shot when I get home.

Cheers Mike, the camera was at its 800 ISO base and the lens was at about T/2.8 from memory. The light was only about 2m away from the actor but even with just three diodes it was still dimmed down. Keeping the exposure so low (and the aperture so open) was necessary to keep excess spill off the light-coloured wall behind the bed, to keep the shot low-key.

I think a showreel is a perfectly reasonable 'first point of contact' for people with a cinematographer's work. In just a couple of minutes it'll give you an idea of whether they light realistically or stylistically, whether they're a raw/handheld kinda guy or a locked-down dollies & cranes kinda guy. It's just a sampler. If people like what they see, you get to the interview stage and things naturally grow from there. But a showreel is simply a simplified portfolio, and that's something most creatives would have to show at any job application. I've certainly got quite a few jobs from people who didn't know me, and whom I wasn't recommended to - but who liked my showreel, and subsequently (after a meeting or phone call) liked me.

Here's a frame from similar situation I shot last year. A mid-sized bedroom, with no window shown, but moonlight implied: We shot this at about 10am so the actual window in the room was blacked out and the sole source of light was a small daylight-balanced Z96 LED panel with only 3 individual diodes left uncovered by gaffer tape: ^ one of these little suckers The whole thing was a pretty low-tech affair, but it worked, and having most of the diodes on the LED taped over meant the multi-source shadows you usually get from LEDs weren't really an issue.

I know this is unrelated, but I love that you've shot a video on film! It's been a while since I've seen those two words in that order :)

At the end of the day, so long as we can still have and make pretty pictures, I find I'm not too bothered about how they're made. Personally I consider the move to digital projection to be far more profound and meaningful a change to what we do (I feel it's for the best) than the move from film to digital acquisition.