Chris Keth

Take advantage of the ability to set the user definable buttons on the side of the camera, the viewfinder, and the back of the body. Use the side and viewfinder buttons for things the DP or operator may want to see such as false color mode, edge enhancement mode, etc. I like to set the back buttons (the A, B, and C) as shortcuts to the framerate menu page, the shutter angle menu page, and the ISO menu page. That lets me change the most common on set adjustments quickly without fumbling.

The union isn't saying that the production can't hire anybody they want. They are saying, since he apparently signed a contract with IATSE, that he is in breach of contract by hiring a non-union stills photographer and they are levying a contractual penalty.

If you have the experience, you may see about joining local 600. Alternately if the production can prove that no qualified union members are available, they can hire you without penalty.

I wouldn't push it. You'll be OK with a third under. I shoot all my color reversal stills a third under to get better density.

You've underexposed that scene by a third stop. A third would be pretty negligible on negative but it will be pretty noticeable on reversal. It won't be a wash unless you were already riding the edge of darkness.

Go find the keys for the dolly and the master pedestal. While you're at it, the key grip wants his butt plug back.

You'll find that 99.9% of the calls for a cinematographer who owns a camera can't afford to pay a proper rate for you or for your equipment. Jobs that can pay something fair also have the money to rent.

Perhaps the ohm rating of your cable is too low and it can't handle a completely overloaded signal?

An SR2 doesn't have the same viewfinder clearance issue with master primes an SR3 has?

It depends on the content. I did a documentary where we tested a 5d and a 7d as extra cameras for interviews and they performed very well in that setting. The A and B cameras were 416s loaded with 7217 and the DSLRs projected next to the S16 pretty admirably since they were static shots. As soon as we introduced camera movement beyond a creep dolly it would have all fallen apart, though.

You're in the stone age, Stu

ALso consider the learning curve of operating steadicam. You won't be in any shape to make money professionally as a steadicam operator for some time.

I guess that is the stereotype for kung fu movies but most that I have ever seen, and certainly many of the classics that people still watch are much simpler in the visual approach. I think of kung fu movies being fairly wide shots-cowboys at the tightest for fights- and lots of hard light. Classic films like are my reference. Notice how little camera movement there is and that it could have easily been shot on one moderately wide lens and one moderately long lens; it's a very cheap approach.

I agree it's a massively overloaded sensor. You have to remember that, while you may have exposed for their faces, your photograph doesn't just contain faces. Without the control to light the area and cut down the contrast, this is the result. You probably could have stopped down a bit and then opened the shadows back up in post. That veil may have ended up just as blown out but you may have ended up with a sharper looking image.

I used 1/8" thick birch cabinet plywood for the dividers, so a single pass on a tablesaw leaves you with a tight fit. I sanded the dividers to fit snug but not tight.

Yes I do. I check each marked distance as well as infinity. I'll also add marks if the lens is deficient in a particular important range.

I have been covered by Stuart's "my ACs" category at a couple different times. I spend a lot of my prep time taping out lenses and looking at them on projectors to check matching and check for problems in performance. Even at good camera houses I send things back for replacement or adjustment quite often. If a lens doesn't tape out and perform properly, I am not even going to bother putting it on a camera in front of the DP. I don't know any assistant worth hiring that doesn't do the same thing to very high standards.

Hard light, mostly wide shots with a fairly static camera.

That was me. Here you go. BTW, you just needed to search this forum for "frontbox" and it was the first hit.

You apparently missed the part where he specified kodak negative. Why would you ever push film in a high-contrast, very bright situation? There's just no need for it.

I'm not sure it's needed either. I just wanted to present it as an option if the contrast he's presented with becomes too great. I know from shooting in Utah in the winter that at elevation in full sun the contrast can get pretty brutal.

Canon's main goal with the 7d and 5dmkii was and is not to make a great video camera. Their goal was to make a great stills camera that can shoot some limited, pretty good looking video for photojournalism purposes.

Its out of print, but find a copy of the excellent book "Optics and Focus for Camera Assistants." It sounds like just what you need.

In regards to your message, pulling is decreased development of the film. To do it, you would overexpose the film by a known number of stops and then have the lab pull the film by the same amount of stops. It will result in lower contrast but still "proper" exposure. To know how much to pull for your situation, you need to do tests.

It's a sensor. Not that amazing. Actually the depth of field is just physics. It's not f-ing magic. Just to keep accurate count, vistavision has this size frame and 65mm has this size frame and larger if you want to keep track of super-panavision's anamorphic 65mm. It also makes an image which your focus puller can't keep sharp. It's too much of a good thing. If you want to shoot a lot of beautiful static frames, it's awesome. If you actually want movement in your motion pictures, you better get to a T4, at least, on a 5d with good lenses before you can expect a minimum of buzzes and even that will come with a lot of marking, measuring, and rehearsal time.