Alex Worster

Laser range finders are a weird thing for me. I use my hard and soft tapes much more often but there are certain situations where the laser range finders are very nice and you really realize it when you don't have one around. For example, if you're in a living room (really any confined space) then the range finder is great for getting marks for stationary objects around the room to help you guess when floor marks are not possible. Also, I use the range finder a lot for handheld/steadicam work because during rehearsals you can take rough distance readings for stationary objects along the way without bothering the operator or more importantly for a starting measurement right before you roll because the starting distance is always different. (Make sure to always take the reading off the actors lower chest/stomach and never anywhere near faces.) So I guess they're nice for special situations or for rough marks so you don't wear your 2nd out (his job his hard enough) but it?s definitely no substitute for the old fashion tape measure. Also, I would only trust a Leica or Hilti (maybe there are other good brands) but those are rather expensive so you should really only get one when you can really afford it and many people do the job just as well with out one.

Thank you very much. You've been most helpful.

Thanks for all the info! 18Ks and Xenon's are still a little out of my reach so forgive my ignorance but they seem like they put out so much light that they would have to be backed off quite far to not overwhelm the shoot. How far off do you, or anyone, back those types of big units off from windows so you don't get way too much light?

Sure thing man, I'm really excited. I already bought my tickets too. I wonder if he'll sign my forehead... maybe not. I ran into Satsuki today and let him know as well so maybe he'll come out. Party on Wayne.

Mr. Mullen, thanks for posting those grabs. It's always a nice way to analyze good lighting. I have a couple questions concerning the 2nd, 3rd an 6th images from your first post. I liked the moody office shoot a lot and was wondering if you used any kind of extra fill or if the big source coming through the window just bounced around enough to give you the fill you wanted? For the outside carnival, did you add any extra light from units off screen or were all those practicals and the source at the lop left giving you what you wanted. Also, do you remember what globes you used on those and in your lanterns? Furthermore, did you have to push that scene at all to not over power the background carnival lights? Lastly, that great blue green color in the hallway shot brings up my last question... did you achieve that nice color with gels on your lights, a filter, in post, or a combination of some sort? I wonder about this when I see shoots or scenes that have a distinct color cast. Sorry about all the questions at once but those shoots are great and really get me thinking. Also I know those questions are rather specific and that you shoot the film a while ago so you might not remember such details but any insight you can given would be greatly appreciated even if you don?t have time to answer all of them.

His new film, Q&A, and maybe an all night party, the kind where cops get called not once but several times. Looks like a good time. Info and advanced tickets here: http://cafilm.org/films/812.html

Thanks for the reply, I watched that and it was great watching him work but I don't remember him talking about what kind of bounces he was using and why. Although I would like to know what he used, if anybody knows, I'd really like to know what you working DPs are using and why? Like a method behind the madness type of deal.

I was wondering if anybody has any info on what kind of bounce Lubezki used for all those great natural light scenes? Your standard foamcore, ultra bounce, mirrors, etc? I assume he used a lot of bounce because he didn't employ any lights for the majority. I haven’t yet gotten a hold on the ASC article on the film so I thought I'd try here first. I guess I'm also looking for a little info in general on different kinds of bounce... characteristics, etc. I know there are no concrete formulas for what to use in a given situation but when would you use one as opposed to another and why? Thanks in advance for any info anyone has to offer.

I'm no David but I for one liked the score. Personally I like Nick Cave, so that's one bias to start with, and I also thought it was neat they put him in the movie at the end as a minstrel type. But that's not about the music... When I first heard it I was a little caught off guard, something like, "Wait, this doesn?t fit a period film". I have heard many grumblings about this in reviews of the film but after I stopped thinking about it I thought it enhanced the film as another means to create the uneasy/unbalanced/strangeness that is Jesse James. It was very much like Jarmusch's use of Young's score for "Dead Man" but not quite as drastic. If that helps at all.

Epic. Deakins kills. The first 45 minutes has some of the exceedingly beautiful cinematography (the rest was really good too). A little self-indulgent but it fits with the story in my opinion. After I getting out of the theater I thought about it for a while and although it was very Malick-esq I found it quite similar to the Godfather films as well. Not as completely captivating in opinion my but still it's a film primarily about relationships (trust is a big issue) and although it doesn?t get violent that often when it does... brutal. That's my two cents, I could go on and on... maybe later.

Thanks for the input however this has got me thinking about a larger issue now. If you get the most information from a healthy negative (let's just say 1/3 to 2/3 stops over) and you light, design, and dress your action for the look you're going for is there a real point to getting fancy with your exposure since the rest might be achievable in post? For example, I've heard many times that underexposing your neg 1-2 stops while shooting a nighttime scene makes for a more convincing effect. Why would this be necessary if you get a good amount of visual information from the thick neg couldn't you just take it down in post and not risk graining your image or other nastiness that comes with underexposure? Is it that DPs are fearing losing more control to the "fix it post" mentality or something else? I guess all this assumes a DI or digital finish. Somebody please set me straight if this is all kinds of wrong, this is a learning process for me.

I'm in pre pre-production on a short that I will be shooting and possibly directing sometime in the not so distant future and I had a couple questions about tests. This will be my first time shooting tests for anything as I'm pretty new to cinematography, hopefully I don't sound too green. I will probably be shooting on Kodak and am guessing I will be using 7218, 7229, or 7205 (or maybe a combination). My short is a period piece, 19th century America (history geeky I know, but I like the story) and takes place in 2 locations... 1. a lightly wooded forest on an overcast day (think Miller's Crossing or New world) and 2. a dimly lantern lit cabin interior. Getting to the point I thought I'd shoot some stock and filter tests because I'm going for some specific looks for the film. A grey muted slightly monochromatic low contrast look for the forest and a warm but dark/contrasty look for the interior. Here's what I thought I'd do... get a test roll of each stock and shoot a wide and medium/close shot of each location with stand ins wearing similar color clothing varying my exposure (and filtration) from normal, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 1, and 2 stops under and over just to see what I get. Here is the catch I don't know exactly where I will be processing or transferring for the real deal nor will I have access to the same camera lens combo I will end up shooting with. I was planning on shooting the tests on my schools NPRs to save some money and just going to the local lab for a quick turn around. I know it is best to control as many variables as possible when shooting tests so do these limitations make my tests worthless or next to it? Also, I will in all likely hood not be finishing on film so should I even both with these test or is this something that it would be easiest to sort out in post? No money for DI just a decent transfer hopefully. Any and all advice would be more than helpful since this will be my first time shooting tests.

I'm going to be traveling to Sweden in a few days for a short film. We're shooting HD with a Technik adaptor and Super Speeds. I'm excited to go but something occurred to me in the last week. Here in the US we use feet so I'm used to pulling focus in feet and inches which is fine because all the lenses I use are marked in feet and meters (depending on the lens). However, in Europe they use the metric system which is new and scary and far too simple but that means I have to work in a system I?m not familiar with, maybe. I already asked the dp and director if it was at all possible to get a set of Super Speeds with feet as well as meters but if worse comes to worse and I have to pull in meters does any body know of a good depth of field, etc program for my palm? I use Eubank's sweet software but it is only in feet (as far as I know) so it will virtually useless in Europe. Pleas help!