John Brawley

I disagree that everything a DP does (i.e. lighting, lens choice, stock) is purely technical - it mostly involves working with light which I see more as an art. Light is what puts mood and texture on screen and conveys emotion so it is NOT a purely technical job. I leave the technical stuff to my gaffer.

Even lens choice can be artistic since you have to select the right focal length and find the right depth of field to convey the proper mood and sub context in a scene.

A film with the world's best angles can be ugly if no artistic thought is given to light, lens, and stock

Every choice on set is both a creative and technical one...

Ive always thought of it like this....

Cinematography is the creative use of a highly technical range of information and knowledge of optics, photochemical process, particle physics, not to mention human psychology. A cinematographer uses all this geeky information for a creative outcome. An image on the screen that speaks and connects with an audience that have no knowledge (or care) of what went into the creation of that image. They only interact with the end result and hopefully make some kind of emotional connection with it.

To me, cinematography is the ultimate bridge between geek and artist?

The illustrious Mr Mullen?s words on collaboration with directors is spot on as well. It?s always different with each director. Some are very hands on, others don?t want to have anything to do with it.

you have to be an Australian citizen... ok... well... thats my lifes dream down the drain... why would it be a shame to open up for paid attendees. If they have 90% Australian students and just a few select very inspired/talented/hardworking foreigners i don't see how that would hurt the school?

It would be a shame because right now the only way you can attend the school is based on merit. they select the best four candidates that apply in a given year based on their showreel and performance at an interview. IN the year I applied, I was told over 600 applied for the four spots. They ask for a reel with examples of finished work (not a showreel montage) and expect it to be two hours worth. My written application was 28 pages long.

8 were shortlisted.

I was interviewed by a panel that included two from the cinematogrpahy department and Peter James ACS. After a pretty intensive grilling (which also included critiquing Peter James's work on Black Robe) i was then brought to a studio with a gaffer and grip.

I had to light several different scenarios such as someone arriving home for work at night. I had a set an actor and was given 30 minustes. They try to trip you up to. You ask for a FULL CTB gel for some moonlight say and the gaffer sticks some purple bit of gel on instead. they're checking to see if you notice and then how you confront it with your crew.

It was one of the most enjoyable afternoons I've ever had on a set.

Needless to say it's pretty damn rigorous and I had a lot of fun doing it.

In last two years i have had some great sessions of practical cinematography. The four of us spent 3 days with Russel Boyd lighting exteriors. We got film, actors grips gaffers etc.

We screened rushes, talked about it and did it all again the next day.

About 2 years ago I did a masterclass with Andrew Lesnie. There were 18 attendees and it was a completely differentt scenario. Because the attendees pay, it's essentially open to anyone. Some had experience comparable to my own, but most didn't. Some had never even been on a film set and were just interested. Therefore, Andrew lesnie had to firstly pare it way back to basics. And then deal with the fact that there were 18 of us and 4 cameras.

The actual one on one time was greatly reduced. the chance to actually explore ideas and really take the time to try things out was not possible in the same way. I got to have a 2 hour block each day where I was the DOP and Russel Boyd (or whatever great mentor you care to mention) looked over my shoulder.

It wasn't about providing a service for someone paying a fee, but exploring and testing myself with a great mentor.

If the school takes on paying students how on earth will it be the same ? More students reduces the contact time. it lowers the benchmarks so that someone that pays rather than someone that has genuine and displayed ability get access to the mentorship. This is after all not a film making 101 course. It's an MA, and they aim to turn out world class graduates. Not graduates who can afford the course. That's what's great about it. It's federally funded to a very high level and money and students ability to pay doesn't come into it.

a btw, could i ask you (or e-mail with you if you would prefer that), how you got to where you are? I would like to be in a similar position in about three years time.

Sure thing...!

You can email me at john@johnbrawley.com

Youre talking about AFTRS or the Australian Film Television And Radio School. I'm a currently enrolled MA student in Cinematography. Yes, Andrew Lesnie and Dion Beebe are alumni. They take 4 MA cinematography students per year. Yes we shoot lot's and lot's of film (and electronic).

The main problem is that it is a federally funded program. It's essentially costs nothing to attend if you're selected. But, you have to be an Australian citizen, or have permanent residency in Australia. They are about to change the program and open it up to paid attendees which will be a great shame.

www.aftrs.edu.au

I must agree with Hal.

I find the spectra is the meter of choice for me. The sekonic's look great on paper, but for me they are sooo friggin complicated and fiddly with too many buttons to get in the way when the sun's going down and the directors screaming for the shot....

I have seen it happen a few times where DOP's have two different ASA's punched in, forget which is which and get it wrong. Take incident readings when they think they're doing reflected. You don't want your meter to have to get in the way of just taking a reading. Having so many features and options means you have to be on top of what's programmed in.

The Spectra is so simple. And although it feels plasticky it's incredibly resilient. One DOP i know walked though a river with it on his belt, got it totally wet and it still worked. I've dropped mine and knocked it about. The only down side would be if you wanted flash.

Other than that, go for simple and fast. Get a Spectra.

It is pretty amazing. In my recent shoot I had up to 800fc on some of my setups. I wanted to overexposed shafts f sunlight and here I was shooting base T5.6. I have NEVER worked at these kind of light levels in a studio before and it really took me a while to accommodate and re-calibrate myself. Trying to do a night interior becomes a lot more interesting as well. On my last shoot I was lighting with xmas lights. But here I am still at 4 or 5.6 and big fixtures.

I have never seen an arc in operation. I wonder if the output is comparable or even greater to the larger HMI's. By all accounts they are and the light has a better and flatter spectral response. I rang around to see if there were any arc's about and got laughed at. So instead I had 24K dino's and 12K spacelights.....

My actors never complained once. I was worried when the door from the set started smoking at 4 meters from a Dino though...I had an additional electric on standby with fire extinguishers and started dimming the lights up and down in-between takes...

It depends on the type of anamorphic lenses whether they will make work more difficult. A 25-250 Panavision zoom is quite an extreme example. Unless your director insists on having the variable focal length available all the time, you can use anamorphic prime lenses with reasonable weight and size.

Hi Chistian.

Just to re-iterate. I had an anamorph-izized 25-250 Angenieux HR from panavision. it was SMALLER than the Primo's and weighed less. It depends which primes you're shooting.

has anyone found a manual in either english or german for the d20?

actually it is hard to believe that this incredibly simple menu supplies all you need but still id like to see if there is more behind that.

 

unlike so many cameras of the digital kind the d20 is just such a robust beauty. i would not trade it in for all the varicams and cine altas on the whole island of japan, that is not even a comparison. and not either for one of those red's that still no one seems to have seen yet.

You wont get one until it's not a prototype camera. At least that's what I was told. I had to shoot without one !!! Arri told me one would be out really soon !!! BUt because the camera is still technically a prototype, they don't want to release the manual

Does anamorphic have better resolution than super 35 because it uses more of the frame, or all of it? And does it have to do with 2,3,4 perf because they're different size frames?

 

As David says, anamorphic certainly does have more negative real estate than super 35 in 2:35 mode. I recently shot my first project on anamorphic. We were shooting for a very slick, very high end and dare i say, Hollywood feel. I was also lucky enough to score a 4K DI finish so i figured it would be worth going anamorphic.

 

There are a lot of downsides as I discovered though. Firstly, it's hard to get anamorphic lenses and they are more expensive. I was lucky ( or maybe not) because I had the Panavision Primo's. BIG BIG lenses. I also had a 25-250 HR zoom, and lets just say that zoom was smaller, and lighter, than any of the prime lenses !!!

 

Then there's the shooting stop. If you want NO DOF, then go anamorphic. While it sounds like a good idea, the reality is, that it is very hard to work with that kind of narrow depth of field.

 

Then there's the weird things that happen with anamorphic lenses. Like the lens flares. They're much harder to cut. Great if you like flares. Harder to avoid if you don't. Plus they do tend to distort more or rather, differently when something os the edge of the frame compared to the middle of the frame.

 

So, yes bigger real estate, but at a cost. I seriously wonder if I'll shoot anamorphic again. To do it well you need a lot of support in terms of grips (heavy and large camera) and lighting firepower. I was shooting 5218 and trying to shoot at T5.6 or even T8. Pretty hard to do without major lighting bullets.

If you're using a regular flouro fixture, you can just change in a dodgy starter motor. Some gaffers I've worked with have a collection with them for just this thing. Otherwise simply turning the ficture off an on can work pretty well.