J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR

The advice on getting a full time marketing person is spot on. Someone has to find clients and be very good at selling to them. You should sell your quality and high production values. When these people call up asking for $3,000 shoots bring them into your office show them your reel and ask, "Is this the quality your looking for? It starts at $15,000." If they don't have 15K or don't want to spend it let them go to the network affiliate and get a video+graphics commercial done. They aren't your client.

Having said that I'm not a partner in a production company but I've been brought in on production meetings as a consultant when people had to be shown what the real quality difference between formats is and what the costs are.

I mostly listen to alt rock (Midnight Oil, U2, The Ocean Blue etc.) and punk (Sex Pistols, Rancid, Bad Religion). I'm also fortunate enough to live near a city (Dallas) that has produced some great rock bands like Tripping Daisy/The Polyphonic Spree and Toadies/Burden Brothers. I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan, he's a fellow Texan after all. I love to play his tunes on my '73 Fender acoustic. (BTW check out "The Buddy Holly Story" with Gary Busey, although not exactly accurate it features some good cinematography along with an amazing backwards, down several flights of stairs, stedi-cam move by Garret Brown.)

I love movie musicals. I think they're amazing and I would love to shoot one someday. The Music Man, Meet me in St. Louis, Jesus Christ Super Star, Hair, all of those musicals are awesome.

I also like classical and opera music, espescially Russian composers. Borodin is amazing.

Did you skip the C-41 bleach entirely? This stuff doesn't look that much different than regular C-41 film skipping the bleach entirely. Looks much bluer than I used to get, but similar.

Hi David, just curious if you were using diffusion on the 18K's, Dino and 10K you used in the gym. If so what kind?

Thanks for being candid about the crew situation. I think it is good information for everybody. Probably shouldn't comment on the situation because I'm not involved but I've seen and heard stories similar and it seems to me the 2nd should be acting in a more profesional manner. If a person takes a job as a second he/she should do the seconds job and support the first even if the first is less experienced.

I think that only applies to older lenses, modern lenses are manufactured to such high standards that there is no variation between individual lenses anymore. Any lens is as good as any other there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably true, I'm referring to lenses that may be out of whack from misuse and/or poor upkeep.

The problem you could run into here is that even if there were a consensus that Lens X was the sharpest wide open, doesn't mean that the actual Lens X you use is. In this scenario you really need to test from the variety you can get your hands on at your equipment provider and see what you find to be sharpest.

This would be a good apportunity for anyone really. Student or more experienced DP. Geez, I would come out to watch for a few days myself if I lived closer especially if you were doing any kind of big night extriors.

I agree with J Lamar that having a lamp-sized hotspot at head height outside the window draws attention to itself, but I think your original exposure was bang on- you just needed the source higher, more diffused Keep up the good work!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Tim you're right. I mostly objected to the hotspot and leaf shadow. Also that he seemed to have two keys in that first shot. I thought it should be smoother, which he did, but it could be hotter than he has it now for sure. I would definitely also hit him with something either through the blinds or from above the window.

This excersize is interesting because I find it hard to explain exactly what I would do in that scenario. It's just so internalized that things come out like I want them without having to think about it. I must make a ton of subconcious tweaks. I've even had a few directors remark to me about how I go into "the zone" or something when I'm lighting.

I forgot where this comes from:

In the beginning there was God.

And God made the light and saw that it was good.

And God made the Lighting cameraman and said he was good.

And the lighting cameraman saw God and said.

"Turn your head a bit, so it's back-lit."

And God said, "But I am God!"

And the lighting cameraman said, "I don't care who you are,

you look better back-lit."

And God turned his head.

The fundementals in the second shot are much better than the first. You now have a solid and logical base from which to work. I encourage you to explore the lighting by changing the intesity and quality of all your lights to see how it affects the mood and look of the scene.

Wow! Congrats, that looks much better. Good job!

How do you feel about it? Does it seems more logical now?

Well I certainly didn't want to get computer "Holy Wars" going. I've used both extensively and don't really have a favorite. I was just thinking that a laptop is going to be a good thing to have in the near future with all the look management going down and I was curious what people were using.

Looks like 3CP runs only on Mac but I don't know if I would even be running that or Lustre. I might just stick with doing it on photoshop. Obviously that's not going to handle a meta-data set-up though. And I also wonder about the Technicolor digital printer light system.

Wow sounds like another very cool script. You're so lucky to be able to work with them. Give me a buzz if you need a second unit guy.

Lmar King,

 

What do you mean by "knock down the light in the window in the background"? Do you mean lessen the intensity? Also the shadows on the right side shoud not be there or be there?

 

Thanks for you advice

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes lessen the intesity. I would personaly get rid of that shadow in the window and smoothly cover the window with the light. It looks much too spotty.

Raise your "window" light on the right side to make the shadow of the actor fall down in a more natural way. Also make that light more intense and sharper.

Just try working it like that and see how you feel about it.

Just for the record I run a desktop PC now and I had a bit of trouble with spyware and such until I went to SP2 and now it's fine. I never really had that many problems anyway. I really don't have a pref for either system.

I'm pretty much looking at running a laptop that would be good to capture frames and some footy from a variety of sources, run something like 3cP or Lustre, etc. and do a bit of editing in HD. Really leaning towards the bigger PowerBook with FW800 and FCP HD.

What David said was exactly what I was thinking. But if you need the light setup like it is you should tune it more. You should have the "window" light from the right coming at a higher angle and brighter. That would tend to lessen the effect of the shadow on the wall. Then knock down the light in the window in the background. Plus make it smoother and even. Try eleminating those bushes. You could then play a subtle bit of edge on the subject with a small unit fixed above the window.

Think of it as direct sun is coming from your "window" on the right so the light in the BG must be dimmer less spotty sky-light. As it is now it looks like you have sun coming from two directions.

Is this chip change really going to have that big of an effect? Wouldn't Intel be building what is in effect the same chip? As in Company A made widget chip X now Company B makes widget chip X?

Just curious at what laptops you guys use? I am looking into getting one to use for pre-viz, look management and signal test software etc. I'm really interested in the Apple Powerbook, I really like that small one.

David, I was curious what your prference was, do you use 'scopes on an HD set to set your exposure or use a zebra/monitor combo?

When you tweak the camera look before a shoot, do you set up to a scope or just go by eye?

Another way to look at it is. What if you were shooting in a grocery store built on a sound stage? I bet a lot of us would probably start by jamming the roof full of spacelights or a giant softbox to get that, lit by overhead flourescent look.

I wish you lived in Texas, I could use you. There are always those low paying indie gigs but you can't find an AC to work them because lately it seems you can always find good paying AC work. I think there are about 8 features between now and August in Dallas alone. Which is good for us.

You should investigate doing some of the lower paying gigs in L.A. or your area because it seems you always meet at least one person who's got something better coming up. On these indie things it seems everyone is a producer/director and the camera crew is always getting hit up to DP or AC something. I got a couple of paying digital features on my line right now because I took a low paying gaffer job and got the chance to show the producer my reel. This is how you build a reel on someone elses dime.

Another thing to try once you have a good reel is to approach established DP's and offer to shoot second unit for them.

Don't forget John Alonzo in numerous film and TV roles. To name a few...

Invitation to a Gunfighter

Terror at Black Falls

Five Fingers of Death

Susan Slade

The Long Rope

The Magnificent Seven

The Wild Wild West

Bewitched

The Twilight Zone

Perry Mason

Dragnet

Here he is as "Bialos" in "COMBAT!"

Just a note to add to what David said, which is certainly all true. When you capture 24p or 24pa footage in Premiere Pro 1.5 make sure that you capture into that same kind of timeline. i.e. 24p footage capture to 24p timeline, 24pa footage capture to 24pa timeline etc. That program doesn't work very good with mixed footage types and shows up as extreme juddering and ghosting.

For running lines yes I meant - the vertical scrolling bar that you commonly see when cameras are pointed at tv sets.-

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Know to me as the NTSC "roll bar" or "scan bar."

At around 2:00 PM on a day with very little overcast and in D.C. would the light enetering through the window be considered hard or soft (diffused)? Also what would be the approx. color temp?

 

Would a few 500w photofloods through something like a bleached bedsheet about a foot away get a effect close to that?

 

Thanks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.