chris marte

Hey everyone. I've been hired by a small production company to shoot some local sports events later this month. They're providing me with a Canon XL-2 mounted with a Redrock Micro 35mm adapter, with 4 Canon FD prime lenses: 28mm, 50mm, 100mm and 200mm. Now i've shot with adapters before, but what always bothers me is that adapters make the f/stop and distance markings on the camera's lenses false, and that DOF charts for a camera don't apply when an adapter is used on them. That in particular is a problem for me, since I love to use DOF charts, because they help me plan shoots and keep me organized. So, Is there any place where i can find a Canon XL-2 with a redrock micro adapter DOF chart? Or is there an equation i can use to calculate how much different DOF will be with the adapter on the XL-2 as compared to with it off?

Thanks Michael. I know what type of light looks like what, i just had a little mix up with what tungsten light would look like under a daylight stock and vice versa. Appreciate it!

I know it's warmer, but when exposed on daylight stock, tungsten light appears blue, because the stock is balanced to 5500K, a cooler color temperature.

Hey everyone. I'm working on a short student film, that's going to be shot at the end of April. The assignment says that I can only shoot OUTSIDE, on Kodak 50D 16mm film on a CP-16 camera and CAN NOT use filters, gels or lights. All I can use are flags or diffusion boards. I have everything good to go, but there are 3 ESSENTIAL scenes where the main subject is walking outside, by a large building, with big windows. The lights inside of these buildings are 3200K, so i know they're going to appear to be blue, because of the daylight stock. Since i can't use color correction filters (remember, no filters), will i get a bluish haze hovering and "spilling out" around the building, or will the blue stay only inside of the building??? I don't mind some blue (the exterior looks warm, so it makes a nice contrast), just as long as it is not "spilling out" or creating a haze.

Hey everyone. I was reading an article from the March 2000 issue of American Cinematographer that interviewed Conrad Hall on his lighting techniques in "American Beauty". There's a part of the article i'd like to quote, because i don't understand what he means by the terms he's using. He's describing the scene at the end of the film where Kevin Spacey kisses Mena Suvari in front of the living room french doors, as the rain falls. Here's the quote: " The light above their heads was a porchlight. I had several lights outside that were either lighting the greens so that we could JUST see them, as well as several focused lights - usually spotted ' on the pin' - coming through the windows. I like to have those units on the pin so that the light doesn't stray all over the place. I want to be able to pick out the certain areas that i want to light." What did he mean by "on the pin"? Is this a lighting technique, slang, a tool? I'm a film student, so i'm still not aware of every term out there. If anyone could let me know, i'd really appreciate it.

As long as the amount of light falling on the subject you're filming stays the same, there generally shouldn't be a reason for you to have lower f stop readings. Use a lighting setup that compensates the amount of light you've lost since the last scene you shot. For example, let's say a reading of f/ 11 gives you the equivalent of 800 footcandles (FC) of light. Since every subsequent stop going down (f/11, f/8, f 5.6, etc.,) lets in half as much light as the previous, f/ 8 would in that case give you the equivalent of 400 FC. To make up the 400 footcandles of light lost, there's some helpful mathematical calculations available on photography websites, or you can just play with your lights until your meter reads as it did before.

Sorry guys, I know I ask some basic questions but here's another: How do you compensate for the changing f-stops when filming outdoors? Let's say that I am filming all day, and the F-stop changes from an f/11 to an f/8, do I just open up one stop? Thanks! Nick As long as the amount of light falling on the subject you're filming stays the same, there generally shouldn't be a reason for you to have lower f stop readings. Use a lighting setup that compensates the amount of light you've lost since the last scene you shot. For example, let's say a reading of f/ 11 gives you the equivalent of 800 footcandles (FC) of light. Since every subsequent stop going down (f/11, f/8, f 5.6, etc.,) lets in half as much light as the previous, f/ 8 would in that case give you the equivalent of 400 FC. To make up the 400 footcandles of light lost, there's some helpful mathematical calculations available on photography websites, or you can just play with your lights until your meter reads as it did before.

To achieve day for night on film, a ND filter is the first thing you have to use, if you're shooting on color film. Try to combine it with a Polarizer, to eliminate the glare from the sun, and remember to set exposure appropriately for the amount of stops you lost in light. Set up the actor(s) with their backs to the sun, (and of course make sure the sun is NOT in the frame) and have white boards or reflectors to their front right and left to reflect the sun's rays towards their face, so their face won't be as dark as the rest of the frame. If you're shooting on video, set an indoor color temperature (such as 3200K) outside. That'll cause the picture to darken and look bluish. Add a ND filter and the lighting setup i mentioned above and you should do well. Remember to always make sure the sky is blue; overcast or partly cloudy skies could alter color temperatures and footcandle readings, making some filters too strong or too weak.

Thanks a lot guys for all the advice! It was all really helpful.

Hey guys, i'm gonna be working on an experimental short film soon, as a DP. I've got everything ready and designed for the shoot ( even though we don't film until April), except for a couple of scenes where 2 characters will be walking on the roof of a room, upside down. Their upside down movement resembles the scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey where the astronauts and attendants walk on the walls until they're completely upside down. I've seen a documentary about 2001 and it didn't explain how Stanley Kubrick was able to do those scenes. I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could tell me a practical, low budget way of doing this. I included a picture below if anyone needs to get a visual idea of what i'm talking about:

It was a #202 lee gel, with a transmission of 50%, according to the equipment department. The light reading was taken with the gel on the window already, and the fresnel lying just outside,so that obviously helped darken the house a bit, leading to the low f stop setting for a proper exposure. The meter was set for the proper ASA and shutter speed, but one of the reasons we were doubtful concerning the light readings was because it's pretty old equipment. Thanks for the advice

Hey everyone, i just finished shooting for a short 16mm student film a couple of days back. The film is supposed to take place in a house that has no power ,so naturally it was a challenge to light. The film stock we used was kodak vision2 500t, because of it's high sensibility to light. Our camera was a 32' bolex h16. We also used 2 light sources, one was a 650 watt Fresnel about 15 feet to the right of the actor, acting as moonlight, and gelled with a bluish lee gel for that effect; and the other was a 1,000 watt kino flo about 15 feet to the actor's left, acting as a "neighbor's street light". With all this, we kept getting a very low light meter reading on our 1st day of shooting, which was telling us to set our f stop to 1.4, and sometimes at 1.0 (1.4 is as low as all three of our camera lenses would go). There were no general worries on our second or third day of shooting, because those days mostly involved outdoor locations during the day. We're still kinda worried about the first day though. I would just like to know if based on the description we gave above we handled everything well, and what could have caused such a low reading when the house seemed to be pretty well lit to the human eye? Do light meters fail often ,and does this look like a case where it did? And if anyone has any tips for an easier way to light a dark interior, let me know please!!! Thank you very much!!! P.S. We used an incident light meter