Travis Cline

Thanks for the replies. It's true, I do have too many headshots and want to cut some of them. Are there any in particular that you like or don't like? I agree about the music too. I never really wanted to use it for the final product anyway, I just used it to cut to and because it is unobtrusive it was easy. I haven't found the right music yet. The bloody singer is from a music video I did for a band called Fear Before the March of Flames and the video is appropiately as absurd as the name of the band. That's the only shot I used that is not from a narrative. Did it strike you as very music video-ish? I didn't want to include shots from music videos, but I like it a bit and thought I might get away with one shot as well. Perhaps it looks like a film with a singer in it? I don't know, what do you think? Travis

Where do you find information about the union? I can;t find info on how to join, who can join, and all of that sort of thing. Travis

I just finished cutting a rough version of my narrative reel and put it on the web. The dilema I face, which is the same one we all face when cutting a reel, is what to cut and what to leave. Right now my reel is about two minutes long which is about the length I would like it to be. The problem is that I shot two features and some other projects that I am going to include as soon as I color correct them. So, I need to cut out about a third of the shots I have in there right now and would love everyone's opinions on what they like and don't like. Please don't be shy and don't feel like you have to say anything is good. Tell me which shots make me look amateur, which parts bore you, and which shots you feel you could do without. Positive criticism about which shots you defiinitely do like would help as well. Thank you all. Let me know. http://playsaga.com/traviscline.mov Travis www.playsaga.com/traviscline.mov

Cole, what's up, you don't believe me? jajaja. Travis

That shot looks really sexy Kevin. I'm just curious if you tried aiming the lights directly at the window with diffusion over them first and didn't like the effect or not. Either way, you ended up with a good result. I'll have to try that. Travis

I have some at http://www.playsaga.com/traviscline.mov There are only a few shots on there that were skip-bleached. I shot a feature not too long ago where I skip bleached about a third of the shoot. Unfortunately, we have not color corrected the film yet or I would show you some of that. Showing you stills or dailies would be misleading given the nature of what we're talking about I think. Travis

I have skip bleached my negative several times and also attempted to recreate that look in telecine only It most definitely does not look the same. Obviously, telecine can desaturate you image to any degree so you can approximate that. Telecine can adjust your contrast as much as you like, so you can make that look like skip bleach. However, leaving all that silver on your negative gives a very organic, tangible feel to your image that no matter how good a colorist may be, they can not approximate. The grain and texture of the image are what you lose if you don't skip-bleach your negative. Skip bleaching your negative is quite exciting and a great look. That being said, I would not endorse skip bleaching your negative unless you know what you are doing. For one, you can not reverse it if you don't like it or if the producer wants to fire you. Secondly, it is very drastic from the results you will get from a normally exposed negative, especially if you have never done it and do not know what kind of image you will get in the end. So, if you can test or you are willing to experiment go for it. The other thing is that it is expensive like John says. So, take that for what it's worth and good luck. Travis

Night Watch is fairly big, but Day Watch is much bigger and much better. Sorry, I don't know the budget on Day Watch. If you like Night Watch you will love when Day Watch comes to America or where ever you live. Travis

the link takes me to the same Not found site. sorry, check it out we'd love to see it. Travis

I was in Russia during Christmas and I saw Nevnoi Dozor (Day Watch) and it was really good, much better than Nochnoi Dozor (Night Watch). It is not only bigger and better production-wise, but the story and story telling are much better as well. Even if you did not like Night Watch you may like Day Watch. Also, you put Brat on your list of films, but nokt Brat 2, which is also a ton better. It tends to happen in Russia that a good, yet very low budget movie gets made and then they get funding to make a sequel which is really just the movie they wished they could have made originally. Another amazing film is Boina (War). Its half in English half Russia. An english reported is kidknapped by Chechnian terrorists. Also, the Cranes Are Flying is amazing and some super spectacular B/W photography. I Am Cuba is also pretty unbelieveable. It was shot in Cuba, but made by Russians. When you watch it you will recognize nearly every shot from some later America movie. There are shots from Goodfellas, The Graduate, Apocolypse Now. Those guys loved it, but it was not too popular in america since it is pro-communist and it was made during the height of the cold War. Anyway, I have to go to set, but this is a good topic, I'll be back later. Travis

Like Dominic says it comes from still photography. If you are shooting stills, especially large format, where you only shoot one frame at a time you have control over developing each photo seperately. For instance, you are taking a picture that you don't have much control over, say a day ext., you expose so that you will have all the shadow detail that you want. Then in development you can change the density of your highlights by push developing or pull developing. Either by developing longer or shorter respectively or increasing temperature(not a great idea). When you change your developing time it effects the highlights, but leaves the shadows the way you exposed them. Now, obviously this is not extremely feasible with motion picture since we take thousands of pictures, but when with any negative film it is "better" to overexpose, meaning you have all the detail you want in your shadows, and then pull the image down in post to make it the way you want. Neg handles overexposure much better than underexposure, unless of course underexposure gives you the look you want. Overexposing to be "safe" only goes so far, because as you overexpose and then pull your image down you increase your contrast. Anyway, that's more than you asked for, sorry. Travis

I shot a short two years ago and every single shot in the film had special effects. Post created a look somewhat inbetween Waking Life and Sky Captain. We thought since all the footage would be animated over anyway in the end that video was the sure route. We shot on DVC-Pro (which could have been our problem, I don't know), but certainly not HD of any kind. Now two years later they are just finishing with their effects and they have told me repeatedly how they wished they would have shot 35mm. They say it would have been much easier to key out. I don't know many details about the post they were doing so I couldn't say, but I was surprised to hear CG guys wishing for 35mm. Anyone, know why DVC-Pro would be so terrible or is it just video in general? Travis

5293 was discontinued last year. It is a sweet stock, I luckily got 50.000' of it last summer for a feature I did after it had been discontinued. It is a tungsten balanced 200ASA film. I prefer to rate it at 160ASA while not wearing an 85 filter and at 100ASA when wearing an 85 filter. Gives it a little more snap. A little extra contrast. Have fun, it is a very sexy stock. Don't shoot a boring old test to see if the camera works though, shoot something fun to look at, you'll like the results. Travis

Thanks, I'll try to get more details and ask you again. Travis

Thanks Mitch, I'll make sure to get a black gate next shoot and see how that affects it. Travis

12x frames are not too bad in a light breeze. If there is any real wind they can get away from you, but they're not bad if you sandbag your stands and anchor the frame to the ground or something solid on either end. Also, if the wind does pick up and the frame is not going to work for you it takes less than 30 seconds to de-rag your from and then its not really a danger anymore. So you don't have to worry about it if there is not high wind and your grip crew is half way competent. Travis

Thanks everyone, I thought I was doing something wrong, or more accurately that something was wrong with the camera. I guess its something we have to live with then? Also, lense is the dictionary as: lense n : a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge transmitted light and to form images Not to be too particular, I learned that from a DP I worked for when I first started with this work. Thanks again though for all your help. So, if the rental house gives me a metallic silver gate and I want to avoid this problem will a black gate help any or is it the same either way? Travis

I've seen it on Moviecam, Arri III, and Gold II. Shutter artifact does sound like it could be, but if so is there anyway to avoid that? The cameras were in good condition and certainly the shutter was in good order, ie painted black. I also forgot to metion that it has occured with filter and without filters. I believe I've always seen it when shooting at a more open aperture as well, but I'm not 100 percent I've never seen it at lower f/stops though. Travis

I tried that I my first couple of reels and everyone always notices. You might get away with it if you have drastically different looks within one film, but even casual viewer will notice that you are coming back to the same music video. Maybe just try keeping all the same footage you have now, but group all the footage together with the same look and see how you like it. Travis

John i don't think this is what happened to Evan's film, but a few months ago I was working on a film and the lab called us saying we had a similar problem with our neg. I never saw the negative so I could say exactly what it looked like. They said we had a blue line something or other. sorry I don't remember the term. We looked at our reports and all of the film with this blue line problem came from the same batch of Kodak film. If I remember correctly it was all 5277. Fortunately all the blue was outside the 16x9 area anyway, but we sent all the remaining film from that batch to Kodak and they replaced it. It was during production though and I never got a chance to ask anyone from Kodak what that was or why it occured. Do you know about that or is my information to sparse to talk about it. Thank you for your help. Travis

I've noticed a few times that I get a flickering lense flare. I've seen it when using tungsten lights, so I know its not a speed issue or any sort of HMI/flourescent problem. It occurs when the light giving me the flare is just out of frame and is hitting the lense at about a 35 degree angle. For instance, if I am panning into a scene the flicker only occurs when the light is in the 35 to 25 degree area and then when the light is in the shot it is no longer a problem. I don't see the flicker in camera, only in post. Could it be a defiiciency with the lenses? I've seen it on Zeiss Super speeds, Panavision Ultraspeeds, and Panavision Superspeeds. I have not seen it on Cooke S4's yet, but it also does not always occur with these other lenses. It only happens occasionally at best. Could it be a light fixture problem? Anyone seen this, know what I am talking about? Travis

My wife is from Russia and I've spent a bit of time in that part of the world. Be careful. That is not a part of the world where you can go to the police and file a report. Also, coming into the country with equipment like that can be tricky. Even if the govt. lets you in, don't trust anyone and don't take that camera out at night. Also, don't expect that anyone will speak english and be able to help you if you are lost. Good luck though, its beautiful and the food is great, so enjoy. Plus, bring voltage adapters specific to europe. Travis

If I were you I would cut the reel in about half. I think you have some good looking stuff, but you could spare to lose a few as well. I think you have a lot of shots in there that are only just as good as others you have and if each new image is not tellling your potential employers something new that you can give them then it hurts you. Like others have said, it is better to have a spectacular short reel rather than an ok long reel. Anyway, just my opinion. Hope it helps. Travis

If I were you I would put all the shots you want to you use from each particular show together. When you show us your coral look or your B/W look and then later on you come back to it, I feel like you are showing me something I've already seen. I would put a few shots from each look together, show what you can do with that look, and then move on and show what else you are good at. Just my opinion though. Thanks for putting it on the web, it looks good. Travis

I shot a film this summer about 5 mental patients that escape from their hospital and go to the woods. Sorry, I don't have any photos right now, but since we knew that we would have plenty of lush green during the exterior section of the film we eliminated green from the first act of the movie when they are in the mental hospital. Its really quite devoid of color in the hospital, but a few other locations before they arrive in the woods were dressed by the art team with reds, oranges, and blues. I felt that if we could eliminate green that once they got out into the woods it would make the film feel much more free and open. The green grass and trees were sexy and really made an impact, or so I think. The film is called mr. dungbeetle. Watch for it this next year. Travis