Lars.Erik

The only good thing about Michael Bay is that his works and movies was the inspiration for a very good song in "Team America". :lol:

If you have bright sun on one side of a persons face, with no or little fill on the other side, then your pictures will ALWAYS be either over- or underexposed. This is how video works. It's the limitations of the medium of videotape, not the camera. Film will also work this way, but they have a higher lightning ratio than video. Video will be around 4:1 - 5:1. Anything over that, and you will lose details in the whites and blacks. Specially when it's for tv. Film can in some cases have all the way up to 9:1. Film noir for example have a very high lighting ratio. When shooting on a sunny day, you will either need HMI's or reflectors to fill the dark areas. You can either use use white reflectors, which is common, these should be no more than 5-6 feet away from the subject. (Depending on the size of the reflector, the bigger the reflector, the longer away it can be). You also have silver reflectors, which are great if you need them further away than the above mentioned. These will give more light. And you have gold reflectors, I've never used them, because they are very intense. Lastolite are good and easy to carry around. Just be careful to use them on windy days, as the moving reflector will make the light move around. Zebra: 100 IRE is the broadcast safe for this cam. It means that the brightest spots in your frame should have zebraes in it. Windows, lights, bald head with highlights on it, the hot spots of a car or a snooker ball etc. Personally I use 90 most of the time. Meaning that your subjects face should have a little more zebra in it than at 100. For example, a little on his forehead. (From where the key is coming from) 70 is the correct skin tone IRE, this means that most of your subjects face should have zebra, I don't use this function as is make it difficult to judge focus. But most importantly is that you also see with your own eyes that the lights hitting your subjects face isn't to harsh. In time it's easier to judge this. So use fill lights to do this. One can also have the subject with it's back to the sun, this will create a nice kicker. But you MUST use a reflector then.

Well, the "cheekiest" thing, I don't like to call it that, but since you've thrown out the ball... I did a 2-day commercial shoot. The production office who did it, is run by a friend of mine. He wants to do more heavy commercials. He's done lots of them before, but then he's done it when employed in another firm. So we got a basically free rental of all our lights. The rental house also wanted to expand. So they agreed to lend it to us, with the conditions that we would call them on our next job. We got 1 4kHMI, 3 2,5kHMI's, 3 1,2kHMI, 2 4ft 4bk Kino's, 2 800w, magic arms, light stands, cabels, filters, etc. But in my experience, I always go to a rental house, tell them what I want, and tell them how much cash I have. And if I can't afford all the gear I want, I usually talk to the rental house people and ask for advice on how to achieve the same effects I want with maybe cheaper lamps, other setups etc. In most cases, they are very helpfull, if they aren't, they just don't come off as very seroius nor professional in my eyes.

I wouldn't invest in a meter. I have one myself, but only use it when I'm rigging large sets. It gives me an idea of the f-stop, but more importantly, it gives me an idea of the lighting ratio. The final judgement I do with the help of a properly set up monitor and zebraes. The light meter will not be good enough for this when it comes to video. Becuase the CCD chip will react differently in different light situations. Besides, for your kind of work, it doesn't sound like it's worth the cost. The screens on 1/3" cams, or 2/3" for that sake, is not very reliable in my experience. Your best guess is the use of zebra. I've used the new Sony HDV once. It need quite a lot of light compared to for example the DVX100a. It's about 1 1/2 to 2 stops more light sensitive. But since I have limited experience with this camera, my best advice to you is to get a PROPERLY set up monitor, take the cam out with you and play around. Use the zebraes and see the result in the monitor. In this way you'll be able to learn how the zebra should react to the pictures you want.

Well, it's all really about the look you're after. The DVX100a is a good camera, but it works differently from the SDX900. I'd go for the SDX any day over the DVX. It has higher resolution and a detachable lens etc. Simplest way: DVX100a: good for those films who require small cameras. (tiny apartments, it will get you shots the SDX can't because of it's size.) It's not very good for handheld shots, unless you're looking for that kind of feel. It won't give you a very good shallow DOF. And trying to figure out the focus is also quite hell. But there is a chart made that calculates the numberic readings on the focus in inches. It's on the page you refered to above. SDX900: it will give you a lot more DOF, it's better for shooting b&w, you can choose different lenses, it gives you more control in form of the more advanced in-camera menu than the dvx. The SDX will look better colour wise. This camera will double your rental cost though, compared to the dvx. My advice, go for the SDX. It's a great camera. In short, SDX is a hell of a better cam than the DVX...

Great. Thank you for that info, John. I'm sorry. But I'm mainly a HD guy. Shoot film once in a while. Are these stocks still available?

Hey there, now this is a kind of tricky question. Because I'm wondering about the film stock they used on Italian films in the 70's. Specially on crime movies. Films by Enzo G. Castellari and people like that. "Big Racket", "High Crime", etc. These films were shot fast and with many one takes. But I kind of like the look of them. I know they had this kind of "fake" anamorphic thing were they exposed half the frame, and in post stretched the picture and thus creating "anamorphic". Correct?This also contributed to the look I guess. I'm not hoping on many replies here, but if any have any suggestions, I'd be happy to listen to them. Thanks

You didn't state if you wanted 1/3" cams or 2/3" cams. On the 1/3" options, you have Panasonic DVX 100a. That's the one I know about. Don't know if PD170 has P scanning. On the 2/3" you have XDCam/IMX. This camera shoots 24P. I think it also records 30P, but not quite sure. Anybody know? You also have DVCPro. Panasonic SDX900.

Hi Phil, as you said, you had limitiations on the equipment. I don't know those limitations, so it's difficult to make up my mind on the photos. I like the first 4 ones, don't like the last 3. The girl looks beatiful, both the shots and the lights. The background on picture 2 is nice, with a distinct seperation from the background. The 3 shot is kind of flat. I think this is because the wall is not very exciting, it's lit with a consistent light. And the kicker on the drummer is weird looking. Kinda makes his head look longer with the lights on both sides of his backhead. But then again it kind of remindes me of Depeche Mode in the late 80's, early 90's. So mabey I like this shot anyway. Probalby need to see the video to decide. The last picture is just not very exciting. Not enough contrast in the lights I guess.

Hello there, as stated, you'd probably would get lots of different advice. The things I do when I look at a script, is to determine what kind of story it is, where it takes place and in what time period. Example; if your shooting lets say something from the 19th century, I'd have a difficult time not shooting on film. Just because the digital look would look to "real". If you have lots of shoots exterior, then it's not that tempting to shoot digital because of the limitations of the video tape regarding lighting ratio. It's possible to do this, but it involves strong HMI's. And when it comes to digital, when shooting fiction, I believe that having a shallow DOF is very important. Unless there is a dramatic reason to have a lot of DOF. So this involves primes. And PS adaptor. (to use 35mm lenses) But what one can do is to go away from HD cams, which is expensive, and rather go for SDX900. (Panasonic DVCPRO). This is a very good camera at a lot lesser price than HDCAM. This is of course if you don't have all the funding needed to have a HD package. This package will free some cash up to spend on lights or filters etc. If you need to get some. And the most important aspect I think you should consider is this; you are a student, so therefore you will probably have a more difficult time to decide upon the takes you do, then lets say someone who has lots of experience. This is a good reason to shoot video. Tape costs nothing compared to film. My former "teacher", one of Norway's best focus pullers, tend to choose HD with his DP when shooting "dialogue" based films with inexperienced actors if possible. So that they just can keep shooting until the dialogue is good. If you are thinking of making a great cinematography film, you might want to consider digital compared to film. Yes, film will likely make the image quality look better. But you'll be pressed about the number of rolls you have. That means less takes for difficult shots, (if you have any), on digital, again, you can just shoot until you've got it. In your position, I think it's more important to think about how the film is shoot (form?), rather than absolutely have to shoot on film. If you do go for video, I'd advise you to get a monitor, at least 14".

If you want a good high noon shot, but as David said not quite sure what shot you want. Anyway, if the picture is a typical high noon with the sun and the sky etc. You need to take a meter reading not on the sun, cause everything else in the sky will be too dark too get any detail reading, but take a reading on the sky on what appears to your eyes to be close to medium gray. This will give the picture a good balanced reading between the highlights of the sun and the details in the sky and clouds etc.

The new Sony HDV actually has a integrated B&W menu. Just seen it once. Never actually used it. Anyone compared this to taking the colours out in post? I don't quite agree with Shawn, even if I do see a point to his claim. Colour in DV can be good, you just have to be able to control them. If you want to shot B&W the most important thing one must do, I believe this anyway, is to have good contrast in your lighting. Without this your pictures may appear flat. The DV tape will be able to have a 5:1 lighting contrast at the most extreme. After this all details in the blacks and white's (the darkest and brightest ones) will lose all detail. But if this is for television you might be better off going for a 4:1 contrast. The filter Paul spoke about I'd go for. These are good, I believe they make them in more colours than just orange. Different colurs for different grades.

Not to use fill light is a good way to photograph a harsh place, with harsh people etc. I don't know. maybe this is what Mr. Eastwood was gunning for. Who knows?

If you want good books, just go to www.theasc.com Bookstore department. They have all the books you'll ever need. Great place!

The Tiffen Vision 3 is a good tripod for a 1/3" camera. It's lightweight and quite cheap. But DO NOT buy it for a 2/3" camera. Then it's way too light. Otherwise, for a 2/3" camera I'd never go for anything lesser than a Sachtler 18. These are quite expensive, but believe me, in the long run, these are the ones you want.

But if you want SOFT light from the HMI, you'll lose a lot of light in the process. And it's ALWAYS a lot easier to have a too strong lamp, and bring it down, than to have a too weak lamp and trying to bring that up.

Ooops! Sorry, The price I qouted was without ballast etc. Sorry. Early morning I guess. The correct price is in the range of 10K.

These cams don't have true progressive look. Do a search as this has been discussed a lot.

If you want one HMI for daylight shooting, a 1200kw lamp won't give you a lot of punch. I'd go for a 2500-4000kw HMI lamp if I were you. But then again, I don't know what type of work you do and how you want to use the lamps. A 2500kw through a diffusion (1/2 or 1/1), frame placed close to a window will give you sufficient light. But this lamp costs about $ 3500. You can also consider using reflectors. They'll bounce the lights back at the subject soft and nice. If it's a sunny day. On a cloudy day the reflectors won't do much. A Kino is great because it's so versatile. A lot of times when I've come into problems when lighting, a Kino will in many cases solve the problem. Mainly because of it's rays of light and the many ways you can attach them to ceilings, walls, stands etc. They are also good for fill light outside. They must be quite close to the subject though. Regarding soft light, Kino is great for that. It won't give you very hard light. A HMI bounced into reflectors will also give soft lights, this light will have a longer reach than the Kino. But it will spill a hell of a lot more. Which you'll need flags to control, which is an extra cost. And then you'll need c-stands. But then again, flags in my opinion are a must when working with HMI. And flags and c-stands don't cost very much to rent, so these can easily be rented from a rental house. If you could afford it, I'd get a 2500kw HMI and a Kino.

Don't remember that he created a genre with his work with Leone. A genre that sadly has been copied so many times, and at so many mistimed places that the ones who did that, have almost destroyed his work. But just almost. His work will stand out in the cinematography history. Great movies shot by a great cinematographer. He will be missed. Thank you for all those great moments you created for us. I'm feeling actually a bit sad now. Think I'll go see "Once upon a time in the west". RIP

If one looks at the history of Hollywood, this always happens. At some point, a genre will outplay it's role. Today that genre is dominated by CGI movies. Michael Bay's "The Island" being the latest. All of these films have the similar scripts. You know what I mean, sure there are some good films coming out here and there. But people are getting fed up with big blockbusters with lots of CGI and little story. Same thing happened in the late sixties. Hollywood made big budget musicals, westerns etc. People got fed up and Hollywood tangled itself in a financial disaster. And what happened? A small movie called "Easy Rider" came out. With no typical big budget trademarks it blew the world away with innovative cinematography and a damn good script. People loved it because the creators actually had somehing to say. Not just out to make a buck. And then Hollywood followed up with similar movies. I believe we are at the same turning point these days. In a few years, maybe even next year, we will see a new great indie film that will turn the tides. And the world of CGI will then change. Sure, it will be there in a strong way. But the films will concentrate more on the story than the CGI. We are a social race, we go to the cafè shop, we go out to see our friends, restaurants, etc. People will go to the theatre, they just need new stories. Better ones than the ones we see today.

It is of no bigger mystery than using nets, nylon stockings etc. in the same manner. It creates a more traditional film diffused look. Not rocket science actually. Whatever gets the job done. And then I can spend the saved cash on another equipment. :D

If you have lots of exteriors, I'd go for the SDX-900. This camera will let you be able to control your highlights a lot better than the DVX will. Unless you can light your exteriors. But this seems like a low budget thing. I wouldn't be so obsessed about the "film-look". Film is film and video is video. If you want a more fiction look shoot progressive and speak to your director about the general look of the movie in terms of composition, colours, movement etc. HD lenses are a good idea. But they are expensive. In some ways the glass is too clear. So I tend to use cellofane between the HD lens and the house. And as Michael said, go to your rental house, set up a 20" monitor correctly. And test the equipment.

Michael Mann's "Collateral". Pretty good shot. And a concrete evidence for all those hard core film fans that movies can be shot on HD...

I think you are right about that, John. And I'd say that is why interlaced will never be able to be a sufficient look for fiction, because it reminds us of ENG. Unless it is some kind of way to tell the story better, of course. Say when you are cutting into news scenes in the fiction film etc. Never did like those films where news shots obviously have been filmed with a 16mm or 35mm...