J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR

Could be either diffuse or hard or in-between. This is where interpretation comes into play. Personally I would generally balance light at that time of day as "white." But that could change easily based on the needs of the story and my interpretation of it. As far as that setup and if you only have those tools, it would probably be better to use a few photoloods with some type of reflector and use a light diffusion like Opal to help blend the shadows yet not kill the output. It's a compromise but it could work. You should do some testing with a camera and see for yourself how different qualities of light, the placement of them and amount of overexposure or lack thereof in the highlights creates the feeling of daylight. A contrast viewing glass can help as well as looking at an isolated part of the scene through a hole in your fist.

Lets make a movie that bans all of these shots and see how choppy and illogical it becomes. What's worse is when the director calls for a shot you know is cliche yet he/she insists. That's when you start digging deep into the lighting knowledge file cabinet under "tricks." :P

Well this thread is title "Post one of your setups." You didn't really light those setups and they aren't unique in their framing or atmosphere. Post something you lit so we can see your skills. :)

If the window isn't prominent in the shot you can try covering it with blackwrap but experiment with leaving a section uncovered at the top or in the middle. Sometimes you can get a dim swath of light to appear on the next wall. Since you're shooting on daylight stock maybe cover the open section of the window with 1/2 CTB to make it feel more like moonlight. Here is an example. The windows on the right have been covered with blackwrap except for the very top. You can see a hint of "moonlight" on the wall and some hitting his knee, which provides a nice edge when he is upright.

Or Goldie Lookin' Chains...

I would add to the list Caleb Deschanel's work: The Black Stallion The Right Stuff The Natural

Can you give us any more explanation as to what you are trying to do? Why don't you feel it looks right? Are you trying to light from within the room but you want mimic light from a window? At the minimum I sometimes use a baby or Junior with a 4x frame of Opal or 216 to make light from a "window" in a room. Then ping-pong something like a mighty or mini-mole into a big card then to a cieling or wall on the opposite side near camera for ambience. But there are many, many ways to create a light that's supposed to be from a window. It helps a lot if you get some ambience up in the room and fill things in for a higher-key look.

LOL Richard, it's funny though because not everyones experience will be that way though a lot will. I knew a kid about 5 years ago all of 18 still living at home who got shot up easy street. His parents rented a house out to a producer with major contacts and she got this kid good paying jobs on the best sets. Sets I couldn't touch at the time. He thought the job was "Cool because it's like Dawson's Creek." He never thought about the film biz until he talked to her. So for him it was like just walking into a pile of money, "Film biz, heck yeah!" :rolleyes:

I think you have to compare it to working as a studio musician rather than a rockstar. You can make a decent living crewing in the film biz as you can as a no-name studio musician. However I would say the odds in the music business are even worse than the film business. I think you have to stay humble and just work your way up the ladder. That's what a carreer is after all. I'm not sure you can even become a famous DP. Are DP's really famous? No one in my family has any idea who Connie Hall was. You can however get to the top of the ladder. Point is that when you start, it is feast or famine but if you excel at what you do there is an in-between where you can make a decent living. I guess for some folks that may be a plateau as well but it's not a bad plateau to be on. If you want to do it bad enough, you will. Lack of commitment kills off lots of folks talented and untalented. Commitment means truly living within your means. Which won't be much, living in a not so great place on the not so great side of town. Driving an old car, wearing old clothes, eating noodles, not making a dime for 3 months straight yet you made it through because you resisted going to Whataburger. Of course Phil should chime in about the dangers of being blindly commited to something. He has a good point. I guess most people will naturally quit banging their head against a wall when it really starts to hurt though...

I still kinda prefer the look of the DVX-100 over the XL-2. I messed with the XL-2 menus for a few hours trying to make it look like a DVX and I could do it. So maybe it's a crapshoot, and you should just look at the money involved. If I was going to use it with the Mini-35 a lot I would go XL-2 for sure because I think the setup is better.

Two things, you can't judge this from stills there has to be motion. Even 60i video can look really good if nothing moves in the frame. While most everyone has dumped analogue audio recording by now you see that there remains a huge and growing industry in items like tube amps, pre-amps, eq's, channel strips etc. both tube and solid state. All this is to keep some of that analogue sound. Because it's pleasing. Overall your basic assumption is right, modern 24p video do look filmic. Some of it very good. That's great but we cinematographers are interested in making this technology be EVERY bit as good as film. Also every bit as good as it can be as it's own medium. You can't settle for good enough. Espescially if some manufacturer is ramming it down your throat. As for my personal opinion having shot SD/HD24p and film. While I love shooting with digital cameras and have no problems doing it, film just kicks it's ass everytime. That's in many more ways than just resolution. Actually i wouldn't care if a digital camera had more resolution than film. It would still lack all the other artistic qualities. BTW, I just got off Gaffing a feature shot on the Sony HDV camera and it does produce a very nice image. Most of the skintones looked a little shitty like DV though. I wasn't the DP so I don't know how much it could have been improved. I wouldn't guess by much because it was a top-flight DP.

Well you're not going to buy new for 10K, that's for sure. Maybe you could get a used SR-1 for that I don't know. Maybe that little dogbone camera? I'll leave it to the other guys to get into the whole economics of ownership etc. which has been discussed a number of times. You should do a search on that.

You know what's funny (not) is how one cell phone can ruin the shooting of a movie. I was on location in Oklahoma last week at a horse racing track where people go to gamble illegaly. Lots of scary looking characters around, etc. At one point everytime we called for a take the same cell would ring. We soon realized that it was one f-ing jerk setting off his phone on purpose. The director wound up calling a bunch of rehearsals until the guy got busted by someone in the crowd.

See you learn something new everyday. I thought for contact printing the gate had to block the sound area. Is that not the case?

If you've shot enough 16mm there isn't any reason to get wigged out over shooting 35. This is when you'll grow to love your AC's. Of course you should do some testing if you're able, especially if you're going to be shooting scope. BTW, a Super35 gate allows an image to be exposed on the area of the negative which is usually left unexposed with a sound aperature. It's left unexposed because that is where a sound track goes on a print. This is why Super35 requires an optical or DI step to anamorphize the image so it can be printed with a soundtrack.

Just use watered down honey and put the fly on it. It'll usually fly off for a bit but come back. A net to contain it is a good idea too.

I finally saw this about a month ago and didn't think it as bad as people made it out to be. The camera shadow was a strange mistake to have happen though.

Maybe it's that I just came off a 14 hour day and I can't get my head around it but it seems obvious that you lit the card and exposed it for f/4 and then did not open the iris to f/2 for the scene and it was underexposed.

Sorry, apparently there was some miscomunication. You can find out more about what the project actually was in my blog.

I find Etnies skateboard shoes comfortable because they have flat soles. They don't have all that bulky rubber hanging off them. Most shoes can be improved by the frequent changing of insoles with better aftermarket ones.

Well they're not as low a color temp as a regular incandescent bulb. They are coated blue but they are not daylight like a photoflood.

Anyone ever heard of this place? I'm going to be working with some people who go there, just wondered where and what it is?

I've used the 100w Reveals in practicals a few times and they are close to being 3200K. They only last about half as long as a regular 100w lightbulb though.

IMO, I don't think it's neccesarily that the HD capture is the culprit. I think rather it's all the digital futzing that is being done. The whole thing just looks wierd to me. I still can't believe that was their intention. If I shot that film and all the 35mm prints looked like the one I saw, I don't think I would ever be hired again. Maybe it's supposed to only look good with digital projection. If that's the case that was a mistake because most people will see it on 35mm. But as someone else said maybe it doesn't matter to the average Joe.

I read in an article that a lens was ruined in that incident and it cost $500,000. I was thinking maybe it meant to say $50,000. Or the total of everything lost was $500,000. How much is one of those PV lenses worth anyway?