J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR

What do you guys think about the Varicamp's? Are they worth the cost?

Well college IS the place for people to try, fail and learn. Is it possible to set up some kind of test where you basically try to create what he wants for the scene but with no action? If you can shoot that and show him what he's going to get he might change his mind. If he still insists, you might have a back up plan in mind because he might have to just see it in the monitor and then want to do something different causing a big delay. I've seen pro directors do that, but I guess sometimes you have too, because if it isn't working you have to do something different.

I guess, if you had a big frame of white bounce material outside the window that if you shot a big enough unit into it that it would come back through the window about as directional and soft as the light in that shot and it would blow the windows.

Wouldn't they have had to have a big white Gryff or a cyc wall behind those windows to get the blown out effect? I mean, you could shine a 100K down onto the set through that window but it's not going to blow it out unless they had tracing paper on them. Clearly they didn't because the light is so directional. So I would assume that they used another big unit to blow out a backing opposite those windows. Or were they shooting a big light through a big frame of some light diffusion straight into the room. As in if the diffusion frame wasn't there you would see the luminare outside the window.

That's such an impossible question to answer. The only thing you can be sure of is this is indeed a tough business to get by in. The only possible thing you can do is work hard at doing good work. If it is, maybe you'll get recognized someday. IMHO, Doing good work is the most important thing to work at. It doesn't matter if you achieve fame.

Yes, that works or use Lee 200 Double CTB over Daylight Kino's or Chroma 50's. Or use like a Full and a Double CTB over a Tungsten lamp. It won't be as radient as Black light but it will cause the paint to have an obvious glow. There is also a Lee filter called Zenith that transmits like 90% above 750nm.

Well, I got to play with it and I like it. I didn't really notice anything bad about the skin tones except one of the clips they showed shot in 60i was mushy looking. It was coming from a DVD though. I didn't mess with the coring feature because we didn't have the type of setup that would benefit from that. I did like it's low light performance, very clean looking. Overall I thought the image looked a bit cool to me in the straight factory pre-set. I'm sure that can be remedied because the camera has extensive image control and I like the fact you can download scene files an share them camera to camera via 1394. IMO this camera has a little better feature set than the DVX and I think would outsell it, espescially if Canon implemented a buyback toward XL-1's.

Personally I don't mind those lines with the common center. It gives me something that feels more precise, like an ever finer site, if I were shooting TV or 1.85. Sounds like you already feel it's too cluttered for your tastes.

The cheapest square filter holder available is to hack saw a slot into the top of a plastic lens shade and make two small cuts on both sides in the bottom to hold the corners of the filter. Works ok if you have a big square lens shade. But think very carefully before the butchering commences.

Certainly better lenses are always better lenses. If you had a Konvas with a PL mount that would open up the possibility of sharper, faster lenses with better contrast. But 35mm film really can't compare with large format so there will be a noticeable difference. The best way to do moonlight would be with a capping shutter arangement and shoot almost like it was a timelapse shot..

I get to play with the XL-2 at a demo in Dallas Tomorrow. I'll be looking for these image defects.

They don't chop anything off. If they are, complain big time. Next time you go to the theatre notice that the shape of the screen changes. Theatres have moveable curtains around the screen and they change its shape to fit either 1.85 or 2.40. I see David beat me to it...

Well the AUDIO MON/VAR (inside the LCD on the body) switch cannot be adjusted in camera mode. Switch to VCR mode to adjust it. The camera always operates in th NDF mode when you shoot 24p or 24pa. As far as the ATW you set it to the USER button in the SW MODE screen, then I believe you have to set ATW to ON in the AUTO SW screen. If that doesn't work try setting the user button to ATWLOCK in the SW MODE screen and I think if you push it twice it will go into ATW mode. I'm not positive of that. Just do a google search for 'DVX100 manual pdf.' I'm sure you can download one.

Same ethic here. I'm not using one on a documentary that is mostly outdoors around an artists house. I'm not using one because I want more of 16mm/70's 'handmade' feel. I also have the luxury of shooting against the sky when it has the tone I want, but that's just the nature of this film. I probably would have used one to bring a sky exposure down by now if I was pressed for time.

If you live near the lab that is going to process the film ask them if they will do it for you for free.

I wish I knew exactly what you are asking. You frame your compositions with the markings in the viewfinder. What ground glass markings do you have? How did you get both 4:3 and 16:9 stills? Did you crop the 4:3 still to 16:9? Usually a 35mm camera shoots at a full aperture which goes beyond what is seen on the screen. You could hard matte it to a different aspect if you wanted too. If you have 16:9 (1.78:1) or 1.85:1 ground glass markings you can shoot a framing chart which is a chart that shows the exact outlines you see in your viewfinder. You give this to the telecine house and they use it to transfer the film with the same frame you are using in your viewfinder for composition. Wish I could have shot a feature before I could answer those questions.

I suggest exactly the opposite and say always use a matte box.

Some people hate (I don't hate, but not a fan of it) when you pola the sky (to an extreme) all the time, because it's definitley a 'look.' You also have to watch out because you can create some big changes in sky color that won't look to good in the edited shot. I find polas useful for toning down specular bounce from landscapes. I'm not saying you're guilty of anything Greg, I just wanted to point that out to less experienced users.

Now you too can own your own movie light manufacturing business. Never Rent Again! Strange but true... Buy Bardwell and McAlister

I love BL's, almost prefer them. I might be alone in that.

Yeah, I was meaning you should contact their members. I think it's a relativaly new group. You have to click around on the cameraguild site. I think the boards are under Technical info or something. To answer a few of your questions; you are working with the Producers and/or PR people. The director doesn't direct or manage you, (but he may yell at you.) :P Usually you shoot all kinds of stuff, documentary of the production, shots of the actors from the camera view point (they sometimes do a stills take for the scene, right before they roll.) portraits of key people and actors and sometimes it might involve mimicking the work of the DP. Some guys use camera blimps and others (like me) use a whisper quiet leaf shutter camera. That still may not be quiet enough though. If you got into it full time you should get a blimp. As far as rights, most of them try to retain them just like you would do in any type of stills photography. I think copyright retention is a big mission of the SMPSP. It's funny that they keep control of the rights of a shot of a DP's lighting setup and the DP doesn't. Some DP's aren't happy about that.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm being an ass but the mistakes you want to avoid are ALL of them. To me a component of good photography is the old saying "Mind your p's and q's." It's the same with shooting, you have to pay attention to detail and hopefully your guys do too. It's why the DP is the guy you can find the easiest, he's always on set! Or at least he should be... :rolleyes: Sometimes it feels like you aren't even creating anything because you are so bogged down in the details, but those details are what gets the good poop up on screen.

You can contact them here: Society of Motion Picture Still Photographers Also look at the message boards at: http://www.cameraguild.com/ I've worked that job a bit myself and I can tell you, you pretty much do all you can. The more varied and dynamic work you do the more you can sell them.

It's funny, but I didn't realize until recently how much Watkin has rubbed off on me. I just kind of noticed it from you guys talking about it then I happened to catch the Three Musketeers and thought for a second "Hey, that looks like something I would do!" Just this soft source that has a natural falloff toward the wall. I guess it shouldn't be a suprise, I have watched "Chariots of Fire" countless times studying the lighting. That film warped my mind when I saw it the first time, I must have only been 11 years old. It really feels like a different time and place, with a smooth dreamlike quality laid on it. There are some fabulous interiors in that film. I want to cry every time I watch that opening beach run. It's one of those scenes that you wonder what did the DP really do? It looks like it might be some delicate underexposure or something. I hope he shot that and not some second unit guy. I really like his work and hope I'm able to do something as good one day.

Interesting that you should say that, I've noticed that myself which is part of the reason I asked the question. I have noticed that some DP's tend to match backlights less on interiors. I see them using something more like a Kicker on the guy with the sun in his face.