Scott Pelzel

David, As I said in my other reply, I am referring to a basic color chart test and there are all sorts of variables that can be added and subtracted to the equation and I was just giving one of those. Much of what we do in Cinematography is not very efficient or practical (lighting for film and video is not a very efficient or practical concept when you break down what has to go into it), but I too like finding ways to do more with less and it's worked for me and made me more efficient and practical in an impractical, but creative job title.

Very true...

It has to do with the lights your are using as well and not all fixtures and you start at cutting the light to the lowest level and then work your way up, so you are pulling scrims for the most part. I think it has to do with what you are lighting the test with and a combo of scrims and adjusting the iris works as well if you start adjusting the iris on the far upper and lower end of scale in the test. -Scott

I have to clarify that I am talking about just for a chart test and not an elaborate set up. Most chart tests are not that elaborate just to test stock.

Why is that David? I have done it many times and never had any problems...

Mike, you don't have to move the lights, you can just knock them down with scrims or nets to start and then pull away the nets or scrims to get your + exposures and add them back and more to get your - exposures. It is not about moving them but cutting them down and you can leave your lights se for the most part. It's not that difficult if you have the scrims or nets and it is a better way to a latitude test for ideal exposure scenarios. -Scott

This is a good way to do a color chart test, but another way is to leave you lens on T4 or T5.6 and leave there, but adjust your lighting in 1 stop increments either side of + or - This method is a better way to test the stock with your ideal Tstop setting as much of the time you will want to stay within the same Tstop for most of your scenes if possible which will help with consistency. Adjusting the lights and not the lens gives you a more accurate ideal latitude reading of the stock or video you are shooting. Have Fun! -Scott

I can only speak for myself on this subject and everyone has their own ideas, but I am a "less is more" type of DP and if I can achieve the lighting I need to achieve with less, I will go that route much of the time and I learned a lot about this way of lighting from doing documentaries which I turned around and applied to my commercial and narrative work. The stock I tend to use more than 500 stocks are actually 250 stocks either daylight or tungsten and either Kodak Vision 2 (5205/5217) or Fuji Eterna (8553/8563) and I love these stocks because they have great looks and excellent latitude and grain structure. I prefer to shoot with the daylight stock if I can because I get more exposure in many circumstances and mainly if I am using HMI's and daylight balanced Kinos mixed with daylight etc... The Fuji stocks tend to have softer looks which I like using in certain situations over the Kodak Vision stock, but like many things, it really comes down to many factors (budget, lights, look etc..) and I like both the Fuji Eterna 500 and Kodak 500 stocks when necessary because they also have great latitude and they give a realism in terms of look that the slower stock lack in certain ways. -Scott

This is a very interesting post and I can relate as I was a Camera Assistant for 5 years after I interned in the Camera Rental Department at Victor Duncan in Detroit straight out of College. The market in Detroit was small when I was assisting and then subsequently shooting as a Cinematographer. When I was an assistant, I assisted a DP that was only a year older than me and a few others. I made the decision to stop assisting and start shooting and also to supplement my income I worked in a record shop and then started editing on Avid as well. The funny thing is now I still shoot and Edit and I moved to NYC in 1997 and then I lived in Brazil for the past 3 years doing the same... I like both sides of the process and I am just now starting to shoot more than edit, so I think there is no direct path to anything in this business. I was a very good AC, but I too hated it, however, I also did still assisting for fashion work and traveled to warm places in the winter, but I hated being a still assistant much more than a motion picture AC because being an AC in Motion Picture work holds higher value than a still assistant who gets paid dirt and works their ass off. So, if you enjoy being an AC that's great and it is something to be proud of, but if you want to take the step to shooting all I can say is do it and find a way to do it or you may end up being an AC for longer than you want to be.

and all of this over a camera head....It really makes you think how unstable some people can be...Maybe we should ban together and track the guy down and shove a set of sticks with a geared head up his arse. I think it is a big loss to all of us here who would frequent the site and one that Roger enjoyed contributing to as well. -Scott

Yes, I am originally from Michigan (but I haven't lived there in 10 years), and when I have gone back to visit over the past couple of years, the economy became worse and worse there and was really bad starting in the fall of last year. The new tax incentives for feature films being shot in Michigan had been talked about for years even when I lived there and I am glad that something was finally done! There are three new studios that are going to be open within the next 4 months in the Detroit area and there have already been a list of features shot in Michigan since the incentive kicked in including Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino". Not that I am a big fan of Michael Bay, but he has said many times how much he loves shooting in Detroit and he has shot there quite a few times already. The legislators in Michigan are also trying to make a provision for incentives with regards to commercial work as well and if that happens it would be even greater because Detroit has always been an Ad town like Chicago mainly because of the Auto industry. I hope to bring more of my own projects back to my home state and I really hope it works out for the state because it is fantastic program. Let's see what happens. -Scott

Hey Guys, Great work from everyone here! I like this thread and I wish more people would post their sites. I am both and Editor and Cinematographer and I have been doing both for over ten years now. I was doing more editing than shooting, then I moved to Brazil for 2 and 1/2 years and that shifted into more shooting than editing. I am now back living in NYC Here is my site with a montage of my work. I will be putting up individual clips soon! -Scott www.scottpelzel.com

You are taking information from the Yahoo entertainment gossip page? WTF? None of us were there, so it is difficult to assess the situation objectively, but I have worked with Shane before and he is no different than any other DP including myself. We all tweak our lights when we have the spare moment and there is nothing wrong with that as that is what we do. If the scene was that intense, the Director should have taken control of the set and made sure that Bale wasn't going to be disturbed while he was in his mode. In my opinion, the Director lost control of his set and that is bad. No matter who Bale is, the Director is the boss and he should have nipped this situation in the bud, but he was powerless as evident in the audio of the situation. Also, the comment that Shane is a young DP in the article is a stupid comment. He is in his 40's and he has shot quite a few features and tons of commercials, plus, he his 10 years the senior of Christian Bale. I would call Shane an experienced DP who was just doing what we all do. His job. I think from listening to the audio of the situation, it is Bale who was the immature one or the young one. Yeah, blow-ups happen on sets all the time, (actually, it has a been rare on the projects I have been involved, but it has happened, although, nothing like this.), however, I don't really think there was much justification for Bale to have a 4 minute tirade on something that could have been solved in less than half that time and the Director should have taken more control in my opinion.

I doubt if Shane will make any kind of statement either as Bale already admitted he was out of line, so what purpose would it serve really? I worked with Shane some years back on a few projects here in NYC and he is originally from upstate New York and he grew up on a farm. He is one of the nicest and most down to earth guys I have ever worked with in this business, but these are the guys that usually get the brunt of tempers like Bale's. I have worked with DP's who would have probably given Bale a good tongue lashing back (I won't mention names here), but it did not surprise me that Shane kept his cool from my experience working with him as he is a professional to answer Bale's question in his tirade. -Scott