Book/TV Project

Merci Laurent, Yes, 150 + 150 does not equal 650. That is why the charts on the Dedo website surprise me. I spent some time comparing the 150 lights at 24v and 3200K and the 650 at 120v and 3180K. As I read the charts, and with a little rough extrapolation, it appears that the 650, at a given diameter of light, gives off maybe 2.5 times the intensity of a 150. This makes no sense, except I do know that Dedo claims that its 150w lights are as efficient as a 300w light. Even if that is true, you would think that the 650 is the same design and would be equally efficient ... assuming that one can accept Dedotec's efficiency claims in the first place. I mentioned the possible need to use heavy diffusion with two 150w lights precisely because of the double shadow problem. The attraction of these lights, if I can solve the double shadow problem and get intensity similar to the 650, is that I'll have more flexibility and also less heat generation. I know what the exposure times will be at f32, and they will work for what I need to do. Encore merci. Salut.

I need to light a fairly small area (not more than 2.5 feet cubed) for stills and film and I'm using apertures as small as f32. I've got two 150w Dedos and I want to acquire a third light with more power. One of the main uses for the additional light will be as a soft light source run either through diffusion or a softbox. As between a Lowel Tota, a 650w Pepper and a 650w Dedo, having looked at the manufacturer's photometrics and taking into account versatility and control, I'm leaning toward the Dedo, despite the fact that it is a little pricey. I'd appreciate coomments about this light from anyone who has used it, having regard to the foregoing. I have one other question. Unless I am misreading the Dedo photometrics, two 150w Dedos give just slightly less intensity than a 650w Dedo. Is this correct? If so, I may want to consider two additional 150w lights, assuming that I would not need so much diffusion, given that I want to avoid double shadows, as to render them almost useless. Thanks. Roy

It is fairly common for a still photographer, after doing some tests, to adopt a "personal" ISO/ASA for a film that is different from the speed recommended by the manufacturer. Do cinematographers do this? I should point out that I am talking about the adoption of a particular speed to get "correct" exposure, not about deliberate under or over exposure.

"I think we should have a prize for the first person to post a question David can't answer." Which is the better film, Day for Night or Fanny and Alexander, given that both deal with the same themes?

Greg, Yes, I'm using the word truck in the same way that some people might use the word dolly. Either way, used without rails. Someone sent me an e-mail asking me to explain my comments on the opening of this film as it relates to Shakespeare and Company. So here goes. There was a woman named Sylvia Beach who opened a bookstore in Paris called Shakespeare and Company. She was instrumental in the publication of certain works by James Joyce and others. The current "Shakespeare and Company" is not located in the same place and is under different ownership. There is an issue about how the owner(s) acquired the name, after Sylvia Beach's death, that I won't bother getting into. Within Paris, the current store is widely seen as a tourist trap for people who have a romanticized vision of the original store. In Paris, it is not seen as a serious store. On his website, Richard Linklater says that he wanted to make the film in a way that captured the "real" Paris. Specifically, he refers to avoiding shots around the Eiffel Tower. In fact, almost all of this film was shot in locations that any resident of Paris would consider to be at the epicenter of tourist territory. It's hard to explain this, assuming that Linklater and his co-writers know the city (which Julie Delpy most definitely does), other than on the basis that they have a good deal of cynicism about the knowledge of the film's potential audience.

David, Your admiration for Pauline a la plage mostly tells me that you have good taste, and, more importantly, a good sense of humour. Pd170user, Thanks. I have a copy of Five C's on order. I've now had a chance to look at the whole of the supplementary material for Before Sunset, and it is clear that they used both a Steadicam and a truck. In case we are not all using English in the same way, by truck I mean something that looks a lot like a wagon with no sides. It's not clear, from the DVD, where they used one and not the other.

Chance, Thanks. I didn't know about the magazine article and will look it up. David, You raise a very interesting question. As you would probably agree, I think that there is a need to recognize that films with a good deal of dialogue should not be put in the same basket just because there is a lot of talk. It seems to me that Pauline a la plage is comedic and, more particularly, draws heavily on the conventions of farce. If someone told me that Pedro Almodavar was influenced by it, particularly in Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, I could see the connection. I don't see any connection with Before Sunset, and if the three people who wrote it have suggested that there is a connection, it seems to me that they are kidding themselves. Before Sunset is a two-person study in character. As a matter of form, I can see comparing it with My Dinner with Andre, or Swimming with Cambodia, or Touching the Void. Apart from the question of form, it is very different from those films. It is very American (as distinct from European or Canadian or New Zealander or Australian) and it is romantic to the point of being sappy. On the upside, Julie Delpy's impersonation of Nina Simone, in the last two minutes of the film, is quite wonderful. In fact, it gives the film badly needed, indeed essential, elevation. On the downside, there are some things in the film - the stuff about Shakespeare and Company and the ride on a Bateau Mouche - that severely undermine the film's integrity. I'll say this. When Julie Delpy, who co-wrote the script, has her character say, as a reasonably well-educated resident of Paris, that her favourite Paris bookstore is Shakespeare and Co., she does some serious damage to the film's credibility, not to mention some violence to the memory of Sylivia Beach. Pauline a la plage is a wonderfully funny film. Before Sunset ain't in the same league, although it is certainly charming in its own way.

David, I've now had a chance to look at the supplementary material to the DVD. The scenes in which the actors walk toward the camera do indeed appear to have been done with a Steadicam. The operator is walking backwards while being more or less guided by someone behind him. We're not talking about a few feet. We're talking about significant distances. My hat's off to the guy who managed this. Turns out that there is an interview with the film's director on the film's website in which he talks about the proficiency of the Steadicam operator, a fellow named Jim McConkey. As for the cafe scene, what you are saying is the most plausible, perhaps the only, explanation for how it was done. I'm just surprised at the fluidity of the dialogue if they shot the whole scene, or substantial parts of it, from each of the two points of view without stopping, and then merged the two takes.

No doubt these questions will demonstrate just how green I am about cinematography, but here goes anyway. A few minutes into this film, the two main characters have a long discussion while sitting across from one-another at a small table in a cafe. It APPEARS that this was shot with two cameras, one each positioned just over the shoulder of each of the actors and that both cameras were rolling throughout the conversation. However, the cameras are not visible in the scene. Could someone tell me how this was done? One obvious possibility is that the cameras were repositioned each time there is a cut from one actor to the other. However, given the non-stop fluidity of the dialogue, this doesn't seem likely. There are several long sequences in which the two main characters are talking as they walk toward the camera. These appear to have been shot by putting the cameraman on a truck and pulling the truck backward at a rate that is in remarkable synch with the pace of the walking actors. When this is done, how hard is it to keep the actors in the frame and keep the truck moving at a rate that equals that of the actors? It doesn't look easy.

Matt, The fact that I know something about. and am sympathetic toward, large format still photography is precisely what I have to be careful about when making decisiions about this project :) John, The underlying point about a number of the posts, including yours, is that in the end the choice of format is going to depend on what kind of "cooking show" we want. On the lighting side, it's interesting that there are so many references to Kino Flo. We have a couple of Dedolights and a projection attachment, which are being used for still photography in what are small sets with windowlight and/or Lowel Totalight. One of the things that we need to do is decide what to use when we move to video and need to light larger areas - Lowel Totalights, Kino Flos or perhaps even Dedo 650w light that has been softened. We aren't at that particular problem yet, but we'll get there soon enough. By the way, I accidentally came across Michael Ondaatje's boook about Walter Murch a few hours ago, and have gotten engrossed in it. I wouldn't have noticed the book, let alone bought it, were it not for the fact that I have read everthing Ondaatje has written. Based on the first hundred pages, this is a pretty remarkable book.

Michael, Your references to Oliver and Lawson are interesting. Patricia Llewellyn pretty much revolutionized the look of cooking shows when she produced Oliver's first series. I haven't seen those programmes in some time, although I have a DVD on order, but my recollection is that they were shot in whole or in part with video cameras and that the editing was pretty frenetic. In the UK, at least, his demographic is young and brought up on music videos. The people who did Lawson's shows figured out that she is a rather attractive woman, and brought a look to the shows that - how shall I put this - has ensured that she has a strong following among British men. I'm not sure how her shows are shot. I'd like to thank everyone for their comments and observations. I've now got a fairly good idea about what our options are, and of the factors that need to be considered in choosing options.

Could I ask one other question, recognizing that it should perhaps be asked in the lighting forum. Does anyone have observations to make about choice of format given that we will be lighting food? I gather, perhaps wrongly, that video is significantly more efficient than film when it comes to the demands for light. I'm not overly concerned about this, because we are currently using tungsten to light still photographs for this project, and contary to assertions by people who use strobes (aka flash), the world has not come to an end. But I would be interested in any observations on combining 16mm film and tungsten or HMI to light subjects that include food. If this is the wrong forum, let me know.

Thanks very much. I'm not worried about the reliability of film as a medium. If I were, I wouldn't use a large format camera for still photography, I'd use a digital camera. In still photography, I generally take a Polaroid or two to confirm exposure and composition. I'm more concerned about making sure that this project is done on a motion picture camera that is mechanically reliable and with ensuring that the lenses are of high quality. For large format, I use Rodenstock and Schneider lenses. I have no idea what the motion picture equivalents are, but lens quality is an important issue for us. I have no problem using fairly low ISO film and lots of light, probably tungsten, for the interior shots. That should handle the grain issue. The question of cost is interesting. Until a couple of days ago, we just took it for granted that cost considerations favoured video. Then a lighting designer told me that we'd get appreciably better quality, and that the pilot would actually cost less, if we used 16mm film. Hence some rethinking, and this post. If 16mm and HD video are even approximately in the same ballpark, from a cost perspective, on a pilot for a half hour programme, 16mm starts to look attractive if the format has advantages that are noticeable in the finished product.

I am working with a high-end chef on a cookbook. We've decided that in addition to the book, we want to do a pilot for a 1/2 hour television series. The pilot will focus on demonstration, in a studio setting, of recipes and techniques, but it will also involve footage taken at markets, at suppliers, in a restaurant kitchen, etc. While we intend to exercise influence over the concept for the series, we will involve others with appropriate expertise to actually do the pilot. The point of this post is to test a couple of our gut feelings with people who, unlike us, actually work with film and video. Our inclination is to do the pilot on 16mm film. In part, this inclination comes from the fact that both of us are proficient at large format still photography. On projection, 16mm film may not offer the same sharpness and resolution of 4"x5" film, but I suspect that it is better than digital video. In addition, it is our understanding, which may or may not be correct, that 16mm film, compared to video, will show a significantly broader range of contrast. If 16mm film does offer better quality, is that quality apparent on television? Does it matter whether the television broadcast is high definition? If there are good reasons to do this project on 16mm, does it matter whether we use standard or super 16mm having regard to the fact that television is the only intended market for the series? What is the best process for converting 16mm film into a product intended for projection on television? Does it matter if one wants to keep open the option of selling a series to European as well as North American markets? We want to do the pilot with a couple of cameras that are completely reliable. Lens quality is important. The gear will be rented. What is out there that would be a good combination without being overkill? Finally, what difference does it make whether sound is recorded on the film or separately? Thanks.