Jaron Berman

From the picture, it looks like an aerial exposures mount - not custom at all. Although perhaps they swapped out bungees or something and slapped their stickers on it? The performance of an AE mount is very dependent on the weight of the camera payload and also how balanced you can make it. Gyros work using "brute force" inertial stabilization. Inertial stabilization also encompasses things like dolly, steadicam, any smooth movement that's not "actively" stabilized. P=MV . Inertia = Mass * Velocity. The more inertia you have, the more stable the shot will be. So to make more inertia you can increase mass (dolly) or velocity (gyro) or both (really fast moving dolly). A gyro as found on the AE mount is made by Kenyon Labs, and they have a lot of different models that can stabilize different payloads. Gyros themselves (kenyon) are very precisely machined and balanced tungsten wheels that spin inside a helium filled envelope. They spin about 14,000rpm if i recall, maybe more - so they whine and also take 20 minutes to get up to speed. Also, they're very sensitive to "caging" - if you're able to forcefully overcome the gyro's desire to stay in one direction, it's not very good for the bearings and shortens the life/kills the gyro. How easy it is to cage the gyro depends on how appropriately you've selected the gyro to the payload, BUT you need to feel-out the maximum speed you can turn a gyro because by design, it wants to fight you from moving it at all. It's a bizarre feeling if you've never held one, but it's a little 5-9lb egg that resists angular motion. So panning, tilting, etc - all must be done slowly and smoothly to prevent caging. Why all the tech background? Because of exactly what Stuart said - with these mounts, the pilot shoots the shot as much as you do. It's all about inertia of the camera. Inertia - the tendency of an object in motion to stay in motion - is what you're looking to maximize. The other way to make a smooth shot is to minimize other forces - you controls, abrupt helicopter movement, etc. You're basically just gently supporting the camera in an AE mount, not really "pointing" it so much as correcting the direction it wants to point. The helicopter is your most effective pan control. Good communication with the pilot is absolutely critical, because like many specialty types of piloting, he's flying the payload not the aircraft - i.e. the type of maneuvers he performs all relate directly to the task at hand, always flying the shot unless it's unsafe to do so. Helicopters can fly in any direction up to a certain speed, though you'll find that some directions are more comfortable and shielded from wind (another external force acting on the camera mount). You'll be shooting out the side so your speeds "forward" (at the lens) are limited. And yes - wide angles are easiest to hide vibration. The reason the cineflex costs what it does is because it can effectively stabilize a VERY long lens, longer than any other commercial system I'm aware of. The gyro mount you're going to work with is nowhere near as complex, though it's similar in performance to some of the older Tyler mounts that the vast majority of aerial footage was shot on for cinematic release (if not handheld). Your best approach is to look at maps, weather, sun charts with your pilot - chances are that company has done this before. And also listen to the pilot about his/her experiences doing exactly this. Plan out the shots you "must get" and the be open to the bonuses or suggestions that he/she may have for additional. Low and slow are dangerous, but otherwise - if it's a reputable company and you're not overflying the aircraft, it'll be fun and safe. Just make sure that with doors off, anything you want to keep (including yourself) is properly secured/strapped in.

Are the beams that make it through bright enough? Is the problem that the beams toward the edge aren't the same brightness as those in the middle? If so your issue is beam spread not source size. If the shafts of light themselves are spreading in too wide a direction from one another then yes - you need a larger physical source. But from the pic it looks like the beam is only really hitting the center portion of the lattice - when you're behind it does it look evenly lit? Depending on the lens of the S4 (and whether you're talking about an ERS/Leko or S4par) you could go to a wider lens or even a smaller source - the closer to a point source you have, the wider the spread of the shafts - as the lattice is acting as your gobo literally. A tiny source like a 2K molette w/ some black wrap behind it may be what you're looking for - something to approximate an Arri X-light or my fave k5600 blackjack - both are EXACTLY the same as fresnels minus lenses - so I agree with Aapo - a fresnel minus the lens may do the trick (and be pretty cheap). Can you hide the lights from the lens? Perhaps low? Depending on what you can hide from camera David has a great suggestion of clustering pars - maybe a row on the ground or vertical behind the column - and if you're careful about flagging beam edges you'll maintain sharp projections.

The best advice, as always, is do your homework. Have you scouted that location throughout the day? Simply knowing sunrise and sunset hours isn't enough if you don't have the means/budget to completely control daylight all day, so knowing what path the sun will follow, how the intensity drops or increases in each space / what direction the light coming through tracks - all VERY important to know when you're planning to shoot in that space. Also know that your units - 2k and 600 are gonna be tungsten (3200K ish) and the light through the windows will be some combination of daylight (4800k - 10,000k avg. 5600-5800k) and whatever paint it's bouncing off of. If you're intending to control the brightness of it throughout the day as well as match it to the lights you have/can afford, then a good place to start would be with those windows - 85 gel or 85n gel (n being ND in different strengths). If you're not looking directly out the windows, one possibility would be to gel them 85n3 then keep cuts of various strengths of ND gel or nets on standby to surf the brightness of the day as the light wanes. The photos make the windows look small, so shouldn't be a whole ton of film. For this kind of thing I always repeat myself - see what you get for free. If you have a DSLR, shoot some photos throughout the day and start getting an idea of what light you want to flag/cut and what light you want to add. A 2k through anything isn't gonna have a lot of kick compared to that daylight without some balance.... so start by metering the room and seeing how much of what's already there you can shape. And shoot master scene - get ALL your wides done while you can control the room light, then when you go for coverage you can at least limit the amount of space you need to light/control. Lens choice is a very personal thing, esp. if you're only given one. I love 32-35mm lenses, but some people don't. They're a little wide for true closeups in a "traditional" sense, but that's not a rule and it may suit your look. I know guys that do CU's on 21mm's! 35 can still be flattering... again - get a DSLR like a T3i or D60 or 7D and shoot some test shots in the space - play around with a zoom lens and look at the different focal lengths you have to choose from of that prime set, see which you can live with for both masters and CU's. And don't forget production design! Seven, for example, would have been a much different film if Khondji had nowhere to throw light. Slick or whatever look you're going for - make sure the "set" itself helps.

Lenses are a bit like paintbrushes - use different brushes in different situations to get different effects. Sometimes you may want absolute sharpness and contrast, minimized flare, etc... whereas sometimes you may want "creamier" gradations, more flare or even flare of a different shape/color/softness. Every lens (even of the same model) will have slightly different feel and look, so a "which lens is best" is tough - best for what? When i bought my lens set it was based on a few factors - rentability, general sharpness and flare resistance, and price. I got Zeiss CP.2's which are excellent lenses - they may not stand up to UP's side-by-side but the do look quite good, and are light-years ahead of SLR glass - so the clients I rent them to are blown away and keep coming back. I LOVE cooke zooms - the Cxx is one of the finest pieces of glass I've ever seen though it's an awkward range for me in terms of zooms. I like the S4's but I personally prefer the older Ultraprimes in a lot of ways, maybe because they're just less clean overall.... more interesting. I'd love to get hold of some K35's as I've never personally used them - though I shot some Canon FD lenses on the AF100 and always enjoyed the look. So many many options, it's hard to know what's the "right" set. Superspeeds seem to always be in demand, and I find my CP.2's to always be in demand (because of flexibility and surprisingly good optical quality). If it's for yourself, you may find a set that looks great to you and your style - K35 for example - that may not be a hot rental item. Or maybe you need to find a compromise that can rent while you're not using them - in which case you need to take market demand into consideration. Truthfully though, the best way to know is to shoot some footage - go to a rental house and roll off some tests in the hard situation - extreme contrast, no contrast, lights in shot, window in shot, all different stops - focus racks - try and make each lens fail in optical quality to know how far you can push them. Most lenses perform about the same when in "studio" conditions - with very slight variations. Where you'll start finding your preference is wide-open while pulling focus with light hitting the lens. We can spout off poetic about this or that, but it's your brush - you need to see the options side-by-side with your own eyes.

I'd imagine future firmware could add that, doesn't sound like anything too processor intensive for the camera to do, esp. as it has dual digic DV III procs, and adding pulldown should be a lot more difficult than simply passing the signal through. That said, why would anyone in the live world use a switcher in Sony-specific pSf mode is beyond me. Essentially every piece of equipment in the broadcast world is most comfortable at 60i. I'm not doubting that situations exist where people are live-switching in psF but the Sony flavor of pSf is not universally compatible. C300 outputting 24p and F3 outputting 24 psf are both sending the same number of real frames per second, the difference being that psF is on a 48hz interlaced carrier, and the C300 is on a 60hz interlaced carrier. The EX3, F3 C300, essentially ANY 24p capable camera can output a 60i pulldown signal, they were all built to do so for compatibility reasons. pst is also a compatibility mode, though a LOT less compatible than simple 60i with pulldown, as it requires the equipment to scan at a (now) non-native 48hz. Tube tv's have no problem scanning slower than their usual 60hz but digital equipment might, hence the non-universality of Sony's flavor of pSf. Do you remember when "24p" hit the market for HDV and nobody could read anyone else's tape format of HDV - all different frequencies and flavors of 24p didn't play nice. For max compatibility, shoot ALL the cams as 23.98p over a 60i carrier and even the first generation of live switcher will handle it beautifully. The final signal will work fine for all televisions, and if the set is decent, it'll recognize the pulldown flags and "reverse telecine" in the final TV, showing a true 24p picture - even though the project itself was shot, switched and broadcast on a 60i signal. Psf......I don't believe that a PsF signal can even be legally broadcast in the US, it requires post-conversion (perhaps internal to the switcher) to be a broadcast legal 60i signal....and at that point - why not just shoot ALL the cams at 60i carrier to begin with and integrate your shiny new C300????? Sounds like some tech director fed them bad info about how psf is more "real" 24p than simple 23.98 over 60i.... again - either way you're shooting 24 fps.

Yes, it's 60i only but as mentioned it does flag duplicate frames. All recorders I've tried, even the cheap Samurai can properly flag and remove pulldown from the signal.

and if you look at the other shot you can see the architecture of the space - the center audience area is lower than the outsides, though they likely built it out and cheated to make it work better for the shot. When the owners walk under the lens it's "plausible" but yes - likely thats the crane arm they're going under as he steps off it onto a built-up platform to remain at eye-level with uma. Similar in design to the hoffa shot that he did over the docks - using the crane step-off to bridge spaces and sweep over large horizontals. http://steadishots.org/shots_detail.cfm?shotID=16

If he in fact actually stepped off at all and didn't ride the whole move (as he said he did for the other shot), the move would be hidden by the fast pan as the owners leave. Vertical movements have stopped at that point - i.e. he's feathered the crane move with the steadicam arm - from the moment the audience claps to the end of the clip it's all horizontal movement, so as the restaurant owners come down the stairs, the actual "step" off the crane is basically already done vertically - looks like the crane arm is at its lowest position. Just from looking at the clip it appears he did actually leave the crane (push-in at the end). More interesting than whether or not he left the crane are the little timing details of the extras - Mr. McConkey is brilliant when it comes to helping block creatively to liven-up shots and hide moves. If you watch carefully the moment where the owners walk out of frame you can see the timing of the group bowing - I would put money on it that McConkey asked to have them there at that moment to help hide the step-off and make the frame between the owners leaving and the push on Uma more interesting than a blank wall. Very cool shot that looks deceptively simple because its executed very very well.

http://steadishots.org/shots_detail.cfm?shotID=1 this is the other shot from the setup with a short description and quote from Larry.

If I'm not mistaken, that's steadicam. Almost positive of it. There's another shot in that setting where Larry McConkey does a massively complicated crane step off in combination with some well-timed walls-flying-out. To my eye, this looks to be a crane step-off as well - but clean enough that it looks like a techno move until the very end. The beauty of it is that his actual step is completely hidden - just one bit of evidence of why he's the best op in the world.

It's more cash than the DP but (in my honest opinion) its superior. Sharper and better coatings, more usable range and better overall feel. It's not a "dslr lens," though it can be used on a DSLR, the interchangeable mounts are a VERY nice and marketable feature. I'm not gonna start a "zeiss vs." debate, but this lens is an extension of the Master Primes /zoom series NOT the SLR primes, that is a fact. Try them side-by-side, you'll see. On m4/3 or RED 3K its a PERFECT range, though for s35 its perhaps a bit too wide for some peoples' taste.

I own a set of the CP.2's and I love them and to the eye they don't breathe. I've never put them to a chart and I'm sure numerically they aren't perfect but they look pretty excellent in use, FAR sharper (contrastier) and less prone to flare than Canon lenses when shooting on Canon bodies. For me the selling point over panchros/rpp/schneiders is this - the CP.2's are very versatile in mounts, very well built and are "zeiss" - i.e. if you're ever looking to rent them out, you'll make your money back. I have yet to meet someone who would pay to rent RPP's, yet guys who own those rent my CP.2's - because they can share the set across multiple bodies (A-cam red, B-cam canon, etc). There are lots of lenses I rent for specific purposes, but for a catch-all set to own AND rent out with the 800iso cams and rentability - I think the CP's are excellent. Many people seem happy with RPP's, but I haven't met anyone that has them that is able to rent them outside their own projects. As for zooms - the next on my list is the LWZ.2 - its a pretty incredible piece of glass with INSANE coatings - it's about $29,000 but try it side-by-side with near competitors (angenieux, rpz, etc) - quite impressive.

Use home depot 4' single T12 fixtures. They'll be the same as Kino ballast/fixtures on Low Power, and you can screw them paint them and destroy them as needed..and because you're using single fixtures, the ballasts are contained and you can mount them wherever you want. Use zipcord and add-a-taps for a clean wiring scheme between them. Rent kino tubes - insert. Or just use cheap industrial tubes and wrap the color gel on them - gives you a LOT more choice in color, even by selecting the base tube color - warm white (3200k) or daylight (7000k), or everyone's favor cool white (4000-4300k). And if you're looking to add +grn just get the cheapest bulbs home depot sells - daylight low CRI industrial tubes, nasty green all day!

they should be almost identical. Don't forget (if it's used) to clean the mirror - that can eat efficiency pretty quickly. The only fresnel I've seen that has any efficiency advantage over the others is the p5600 alpha because of the reflector material....kind of a moon-rock ceramic that actually reflects more light than polished aluminum. other than that though, arri/mole/altman/ all basically the exact same when clean.

As soon as I write this I'm gonna wanna change it I'm sure. Lawrence of Arabia - jaw dropping visuals that serve the epic Night of the Hunter - best Noir Bladerunner - best color noir The Conformist - hybrid of so many things Lifeboat - no repeated shots and visually still works to wrap you into the story Memoirs of a Geisha - the "slickest" film I've seen in a long time Seven - probably visually my second favorite of all time behind Lawrence Apocalypse Now - the colors! Assassination of Jesse James - Deakins' best work Children of Men - the camera as a character, best usage of that method Bonus Pick - Touch The Sound - the best-shot doc I've ever seen.

if you watch the film "visions of light," I think there's a lot more than 10, but I'd say every one of the films they reference is a "must watch." I certainly learned of a few that I would not have known about that have since become favorites, not only from a visual standpoint. Night of the Hunter is a particular example. And watching Cameraman (about Jack Cardiff) - there's an interesting interview with Martin Scorsese about his influences - especially The Red Shoes and Black Narcissus. The fun thing about docs like those - you get to see glimpses of films you may not have seen before. If my list even got to "modern" films I'd definitely agree with Stuart about Jesse James - in my opinion it's Deakins' finest work. Actually I think my list would overlap his quite a bit. Also - films like Lawrence of Arabia are quite impressive at home, but SPECTACULAR when shown from an original 70mm print. Hard not to include that one.

What's interesting about the briese is that it's not really a "softlight," it's more of a massive source hard light, something akin to a massive fresnel. Even while film stocks and digital cams get more light sensitive, there's still a lot of 10k fresnels and sometimes "big eye tenners" used because they're very controllable and focusable but by virtue of the massive relative aperture, the light still wraps. SO, to get that same effect, briese puts a relatively tiny source inside a massive parabola - reflective optics. A big-eye 10k will throw roughly the same looking light opts the smallest briese, but weigh about 100lb more because of the massive glass lens to achieve the same, relatively large surface and parallel light rays. On the market now is k5600's "bigeye" which is a giant acrylic fresnel lens to get that effect as an accessory - very very cool... And with a joker inside it looks to be VERY bright. And jokers are quite common and durable, so after sale service isn't a big ? Like briese in the USA. OR, something like the aforementioned starlite or Westcott equivalent in a silver soft box without front diffusion but WITH eggcrate grids. Not as easily adjustable but similar light character, as the light is bouncing off all the inner surface of the box making a large apparent source (still hard) and being "focused" by the front grid choice. Not as efficient as the briese but I think cost-wise it would be magnitudes cheaper. Don't forget that with briese you aren't just buying the modifier you're buying the lamp head with striker, ballast etc- all proprietary. B2pro has made some excellent improvements to the briese system but they don't sell, and I'm not sure many people would buy such a specialty light anyways at the prices they cost - ballpark 18,000 for the smallest complete system. That'll get you 3 jokers and a bunch of modifiers that'll pay for themselves very quickly. Not to say the briese isn't a cool and amazing light- the b2pro "walk n talk" is AWESOME- being able to match or overpower daylight with batteries handheld..... But it's really a specialty item and if the "wrapping specular light" look is what you're after it's probably worth trying with more conventional modifiers- even a massive silver lame bounce, if cut correctly, may give the look you're after. Or one of the cheap giant silver photographic umbrellas with a conventional lamp in it- why not? Mess around and build 100 prototypes. I've thought about making a little aluminum bracket with 2 x hpl sockets that clamps to the umbrella stalk on a conventional still photo umbrella to do the same thing- and I'm sure it would work and be easily focusable by clamping it closer or farther from the umbrella.

Just played with it today - it's brilliant. Personally, I despise the add-on EVF's. For pulling your own focus, the lack of analog peaking control is a non-starter. The ProVFM uses regular B&W HD finders and they look OUTSTANDING. Sharp, nice contrast, and ANALOG peaking control!!!!! Plus the adjustments are logical - fore/aft and in/out without loosening a nova arm and flopping all over the place. it's weird to be so excited about something so common - a standard ENG viewfinder, but in this context of band-aids and legos strapped to the outside of a camera, ANYTHING that makes it more ergonomically friendly is worth celebrating - and in my opinion the ProVFM is way way way beyond successful. Abel had the prototype Element Technica baseplate on the cam, and the combo was very very balanced and comfortable on the shoulder and easy to actually operate! Once I figure out what cams we'll be using for the next project, I intend to order my ProVFM - because I have a hunch that F3/FS100/C300 body style cams are gonna be here for a while and having to use them with someone else's bottom of the barrel eve and mounting is not good for the body (or more importantly body of work)

Sounds like an interesting project! People have come at this problem before to "solve" issues of cost, weight capacity, size, physical weight, complexity, etc... It's hard to design a better mousetrap without extensively using all the mouse traps out there. And you may find that dolly grips and camera ops are opinionated bunches (just read through the camera forums on this site!). But know that in the early 70's, a cameraman named Garrett Brown had the same idea, posing the question, "why does a dolly have to be so heavy and complicated to setup? How can I move the camera around faster?" He came up with what is now known even in pop culture as the Steadicam. So obviously, it's an interesting problem and one with many possible solutions. There are 2 main manufacturers in the U.S. that essentially own the market on dollies - Chapman Leonard and J.L. Fisher. Fisher gives tours which are great and full of interesting design notes if you ever get a chance to take the trip. Their initial dolly design was based off a hydraulic accumulator from an aircraft's landing gear - surplus from WW2 - based off an earlier design which resembled aircraft parts even more. Here's an earlier thread on it including external links: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=48469 There is another company in the game, more popular abroad than in the U.S. - Panther. They actually sell their dollies instead of just renting, as well as their other grip gear. Some of their ideas are quite clever, updates on earlier fully hydraulic designs. It's personal preference, but in the 2 times I had to use the Panther it failed both times and caused production delays. Michael Ballhaus used to own a Panther, so they are/were out there and being used but major DP's.... but I think my experience was somewhat typical. Fisher dollies are just pretty bulletproof even when they haven't been factory cleaned in a while - and they have backup systems to avoid delays like the ones we experienced with panther. Speed and reliability are the most important things, more than exotic features. But also don't forget P=MV Dollies are heavy PRECISELY because mass and speed make the shot steadier - dollies are often used to make very very slow moves which means the track must be PERFECT or the weight of the dolly must be high to dampen and keep the inertia high. Just a couple things to think about. Good luck on the project!

to the initial question - "Should directors always hire a dp to shoot for them? " I think the answer to almost every subjective question concerning collaborative media like motion pictures is the same, another question - "what's best for the project?" It's the question EVERY dp should ask when suggesting an elaborate shot just as it's the same question a director should ask when crewing up. In the end, whether its a blockbuster, art film, reality show or news segment the goal is ALWAYS the same - tell a (hopefully good) story and tell it well. Time you take to properly DP is time away from directing your actors. If hiring a DP allows you to work closer with your actors while lighting is being tweaked or dolly tracks adjusted then it'll show in your final product. Obviously school is the best time/place to see first-hand why specialization is a good thing... and as part of the learning process it may be worthwhile to interview your AD and gaffer afterwards to try and get their truthful opinions on the experience. They will be picking up the slack so make sure to treat them nicely! Last thought - If cinematography is your end goal, are you not able to hire a director?

You're not gonna damage anything on that caliber of tripod by going a few pounds over - 42lbs feels like a ton when you're handheld or lugging it around carefully but in reality - that's a tiny amount of weight for engineered materials like steel and aluminum...even plastic. The bigger issue is proper balance. A video 20 head can certainly support the weight of that kit, but it MAY or may not balance it - and what's the point if the head isn't working as its designed - to make your shot easier. The less effort you use to control the shot the smoother it'll be, so obviously proper balance can make/break the shot itself. But as you likely know - you're probably gonna spend about the cost of that lens on the tripod. I have used a number of the new vintens, and actually really like them - i find their fluid system to be infinitely better than Sachtler, though less common in the "film" world - most of their products are geared towards broadcast incl. massive box lenses. They tend to have much tighter weight ranges - I'd guess because in the broadcast world there's less day-to-day swapping of accessories and configurations - so they can build a head maximized to a smaller weight range. In feel, I think they feel on-par with Oconnor, perhaps smoother in some cases (if the conner is poorly maintained). One thing I LOVE about vinten is that on basically every model from the vision 100 on up, they have an adaptive dampening - if you start a pan and need to speed up, then slow down, the fluid adjusts. You can whip-pan into a slow move without changing drag settings - it's pretty incredible and actually makes following unmarked actors a LOT easier. Not sure what they call this technology but its pretty amazing and keeps you from winding up the legs on a fast move - so you get a perfect stop. Sachtler is a LOT more common because they take a beating in rental fleets and are very flexible in their weight capacities - and if you're renting the same head/sticks out every day with 100 different camera configurations, those are both important points. They tend to work as well when 10 yrs old and beat-up as they do new - if you like the way they work when they're new! They certainly aren't bad, I just prefer (personally) vintens and oconnors more. I've never been a big cartoni fan, but like Bryan said - its all personal preference. He doesn't like Vinten, I do - ask 10 people get 20 opinions :) If you can get your hands on all the possible heads obviously thats best. And if you're interested in a vinten try calling a local tv station and drop by - if they have real studio cams they will likely have vinten or cartoni support of about that size or bigger

try resetting the monitor. Sometimes it gets stuck looking for a particular type of signal and seems as though the monitor is broken. In one level of the menu is a initialize / reset to default -try that and you may be surprised. Also, it CHEWS through batteries, so make sure they're very very fresh or it sometimes has trouble locking on to a signal.

Avenger part number e390 (TVMP bolt to 5/8" female) - the lights aren't particularly heavy, baby hardware is fine hence the avenger mount made almost specifically for s4 light units. I'm pretty sure the ETC part is cross-referenced with the avenger e390, seem to recall that from buying s4 parnels a while back.

There's a chart in the CP2 manual that comes with the mounts that spec's the shim thicknesses and also the quickest procedure to collimate in the field. It works pretty well BUT it takes a loooooooong time - you have to properly torque all the tiny screws, mount the lens, check it to a focus chart, then disassemble, shim, check again. Not fast, but it works. And shims exist because the flange on each camera may or may not be to proper spec. I found that when I shimmed my set for PL, the lenses taped-out remarkably well using the same combos for EF - menaing that the set I have is very uniform on the lens-side, and that my PL-mount and Canon mounts are equally to spec or equally out-of-spec - but to the same degree. So there are a lot of variables. Best bet is to measure a lens using their procedure and start with whatever it is, at least you'll know which direction to shim - add or remove. But I'd say get the PL/EF mount manual and read through it - it has the charts.