Adam Orton

Thanks for all the encouraging comments, guys!

HAHA! Wow, I totally feel ya there. Although I'm more of a rum guy. But yeah, after the shoot this weekend I'm definitely going to take it easy.

Thanks!

Thanks. I'm glad to know other people can understand what I'm going through :-)

I'm shooting a short project for school this weekend and I'm terrified. This isn't the first movie I've ever written or directed, but I've noticed a pattern forming... I feel incredibly nervous; almost like a panic attack yet I'm still able to function without showing. All of the stuff I've directed I've also written, and sometimes I feel weird about having other people act or be a part of my script. I feel like they might think it's ridiculous and terrible, or I'm afraid that the movie will turn out ridiculous... there's just too much anxiety. Maybe because I'm starting to make more serious movies, subject-wise. Who knows... My question for all of you guys is, does this happen to you? I'm not talking about nerves where you feel like you won't be able to handle the stress of directing a film shoot, but nerves about how the movie is going to look in the end. How do you deal with it?

Oh, where else can I get ahold of these? My school only hands out gray cards. I'm wondering if they are even going to use them for reference...but it won't hurt anyway to shoot with one. I just need to know where to get one.

Very true.

I suppose I should mention that I'm working with a barebones, hole-in-the-closet, sorry excuse for a telecine lab. My school has their own transfer facility and they they normally transfer an excess of a 1000 student's worth of film every semester. Because of that, they treat the whole process like a McDonald's BigMac...you just sort of get what you get. They tell students to shoot a grey card, then they correct that with their eyes (I don't know if this is how other labs do it, but I'm sure other labs use more than a grey card). They don't spend any time working with the directors and cinematographers to achieve any kind of 'look'. Also, all of the footage I've shot with them so far looks ridiculously grainy (Even the low 100 asa stocks. I don't know if that's a by-product of their hurried approach, but it seems a little rough for 100 speed film.) I've even looked at the negatives under a magnifying glass and they seem to look fine. I don't understand why it looks so grainy on DVcam. This is probably a whole nuther post though. Basically, I get what they give me. Since my final output will probably just be SD DVD, all the color grading will be done on an un-calibrated LCD monitor I have at home :-) I know you're all cringing. Depending on how the film turns out, I'm definitely going to consider going to a good lab and getting an HD transfer...or something else that looks nice. But we'll see.

So they lit the entire exterior set for an even 5500k? That's really interesting and answers another question I didn't even know I had ;-) I can't wait to do some tests.

I guess it technically would count. When I said "correction" I was referring more to the fact that they weren't "gelling the sun". :-)

Whoa, thanks :-) I'm also shooting a few feet of Grey card for telecining. Should I expose that normally at 100 asa in tungsten lighting then?

Actors hate them. Avoid unless it's something very specific to that character.

The two most important tools for directing an actor are: Action verbs and METAPHORS. For a single character scene, use a metaphor. I think some people call them "as-if's". And I know exactly what you're going through. I even asked a fellow actor for some help. I shot a short film a few month ago where an old man returns to the memory of a lost loved one. This is revealed by his character literally stepping foot on the lawn of the home he used to live in when his girlfriend died. Stepping foot onto the lawn was supposed to be strange and unnerving for his character, so I gave him a metaphor: "As if you're a scrawny young boy being called off the bench to fill in for the quarterback." I was amazed at how well the actor instantly understood what I was getting at. If I had said, "Be nervous", it wouldn't have provided as good of a response. In fact, I avoided talking about the scene's "mood" or "feeling" at all just to keep his mind clear. Remember, always give actors something tangible and real to work off of.

Couldn't agree with you more. When I first got into film (not to imply that I'm really "in" film, just studying and making my own stuff) I wanted to be a DP because I loved how certain camera shots could create such amazing emotions. Then I realized if I was going to do this, I'd have to learn a bunch of technical stuff only to have my ideas be subjected to the director's storyboard at the end of the day. I also soon fell in love with screenwriting and acting, something I think I'm better at. So eventually the decision was made to pursue directing. I think there are a lot of amazing DP's who would make excellent directors, but if they've been hired to be a DP, they need to be a DP for that project.

I'll admit that sounded a bit harsh, and I'm not the type of person who shuns others for their input. I guess it all depends on the experience of the person giving input. If Wally Pfister ASC was telling me what kind of shot to do, I'd listen. If Mr. Film School DP tells me there should be a canted push-pull on a CU of a boy meeting his long-lost mother, I'm going to ignore it. I don't care what anyone believes is the responsibility of the DP. If anything that is a really subjective opinion. I've talked to plenty of people who had no idea that the director typically plans the shots. (In film school no less.) Sure, everyone knows Hitchcock's shots were his doing...but that was Hitch--who is a legend. Also, I wasn't using this example to say that directors don't get enough respect--they probably get too much--or to imply that cinematographers do not give credit where it is due...I'm just providing a similar situation, for empathy's sake. (I'm currently working on a film where a terrific DP suggested using timelapses as a transitional element; and it looks amazing. That was all him and I will gladly tell people that.) No single person is really the reason why things happen on set. And if a good DP's work is botched by a director, that's a real tragedy. HOWEVER, it can be flipped around to another situation...if that work is "botched with" properly ("properly botched" heh), the DP will be the one who was responsible for it. Basically, the director is just trying to make a good movie. If his instinct is correct, everyone's jobs will appear better and the movie will be successful and more people will see it. He's not purposefully just trying to trump you nor is he some idiot the producer put in place to control everyone. And if you don't agree with him, as I said before, it's probably too late by this point to do anything about it. If you're getting paid, then you really can't complain, unless union rules are being broken and the director is a real jerk. Someone on here mentioned that it's the Director's Movie. Maybe so, but there are other ways to look at it. I like to see it as the entire cast and crew's movie, with a director everyone has faith in to not waste their time making a stupid movie. In fact, I would feel bad making a movie that the DP hated. That will always encourage me to make something good; and to seek guidance. But they can be planned by one individual. I worked at a TV station where I edited footage for the producer. One day that show won an Emmy, but I didn't write the script, shoot the B-roll, or get the interviews. I did work my butt off to get it on the air, but it would be ridiculous to claim that I had any doing in the brain work behind it. It was the producers and reporter who wrote the story and covered it. And I can admit that. And funny you mention The Dark Knight. I heard that Nolan knows exactly what shots he wants to use regardless of the input he receives from anyone else. (I don't know if this is true; but there are plenty of other directors that are like that.) I'm not claiming that he steals credit for a shot and that an elaborate move he plans isn't accomplished by a superb crew with an amazing DP. But, even in your example, the director saw an emotional need for the shot and called for it, and the DP and gaffer made it happen. But what do I know? ;) I'm just some dude on the internet who's not from LA.

Aha. That clears up so much then. Thanks!

This is a great question. I've had a little bit of experience in this area being that I'm more of a director with an interest in cinematography...One of the main reasons I've stuck to directing is that I love planning shots and working with actors. I think because I originally entered film with the hopes of DP'ing, I can empathize with Cinematographers and try to make their job more fun by giving them opportunities to show off. (Who knows, I could still end up being a DP and I wouldn't mind at all!) Unfortunately I sometimes stick my nose in the DP's job and micro-manage. I'm working on that. What personally offends me is when a DP (I've had this happen on a short film shoot at school) tries to talk to me about what emotional effect my camera move is evoking; or how I should do it differently. I'm open to suggestions, but this particular cinematographer believed it was his job to evoke the mood and feeling through the camera moves. He practically wanted me to let him line the script... granted, this was a school project and an extreme example, but it shows how misunderstandings can get in the way. I understand your problems with having the director control your work and all I can say is that it works in reverse too, unfortunately. For instance, a particular director can have some of the most amazing and elaborate shots ever known to cinema in his/her movie, but the average layman is going to see the credit, "Cinematography by John Smith" and assume he/she was responsible for it. I think DP's and Directors should enter into a project knowing where the others' boundaries are. There's nothing wrong with suggestions, but at some point you have to let the other person do their job and trust them to do it their best with your work. If you talk with someone before shooting, you'll be less likely to step on their toes.

Reversal is different from negative in a few significant ways. The most obvious is that Reversal produces a positive image once it's developed/processed. You could run it through a projector as soon as you got it developed. Slide film is a good example of what reversal is. Here's a crude example: Negative film produces a "negative" image. If you've ever developed your pictures at Wal mart and looked at the negatives, you'll see that all the colors are backwards. In order for negative to look right, the colors have to be inverted. (Try this in Photoshop. Take a negative and invert the colors.) Reversal film also has a narrower range than negative. (I'm not sure if the word is latitude, correct me if I'm wrong). That means it's easier to lose details in the highlights. Reversal needs a more careful exposure and works better with evenly lit, low contrast scenes. Professionals typically use Negative. Although if you've ever seen the movie Pi, you'll get a good example of B and W reversal in action. That's just the basics. There's a lot more technical stuff that I don't even know about it :-)

OK, if there were a "stupid questions" category to post under, I would gladly place this question there. I know a fresnel is essentially a light that uses a lens to produce an even, consistent spread of light. (That can be spotted or flooded.) I was always under the impression that a fresnel light used a piece of specially shaped glass to reorganize the light, but lately I've heard of something called an "Open-faced Fresnel" that produces pretty even light (from what I've gathered) and can be spotted or flooded the same. But it doesn't use a lens; rather, it's just a bulb with a curved mirror behind it... My question is, what exactly qualifies a light as a fresnel? Is there such a thing as an "open-faced" fresnel?

I think I'll do that then. Thanks for all your help!

Also, I've heard that The Shawshank Redemption shot tungsten outdoors with no correction while shooting or after and it produced images like this: http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/07...shawshank_l.jpg I really like that look of it, but I'm obviously nervous about shooting expensive T film uncorrected :-)

I'll probably just shoot with an 85 then tweak it later. I was just curious because I don't have access to daylight film (don't ask why my school doesn't give us the choice), and the results I've gotten from leaving the white balance on a digital camera set to tungsten produce very blue images-like the second link I posted. It's probably because it's a digital camera and not film, but obviously I was curious to know what the difference was and what would happen if you applied that theory to the 7212 stock I was using. Thanks for the help.

I'm shooting Vision2 100T stock (7212) outdoors with no correction and I'm trying to get a slight subtle bluish hue to the film that's somewhat comparable to this: http://www.celluloidheroreviews.com/images...weather-man.jpg I'm afraid it will look like this: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard...LR-19085684.jpg What are your opinions? How do I get it to look like the first frame?

Here's a still from the footage I got. Thanks guys!