Jason Anderson

Maybe hard light motivated by streetlight coming through a window. Imagine the terrorist standing against a window, mostly silhouetted, the background helps separate him, we can barely make out features. What if the gun starts out in shadows and catches a slight glint of light.

I suggest you read David Mullens faq http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=8069. Read the section on soft and hard light.

Jason

This all is really interesting to me, and I'm curious if I would be eligible for any type of non paid/ paid internship. I am still in high school though, my one problem. I have prior experience doing miscellaneous jobs at CNBC. So I'm really not sure what my options are? If any?

According to the application posted above, if are under 18 and can give them a permit you are fine. He also mentioned it is possible to get the internship with no film set experience, though it is preferred.

How can one even direct "photography" in a movie that doesn't have any? :unsure: Maybe it is necessary if they are shooting background plates of some sort.

This link is to an interview with the cinematographer of finding nemo. Although nothing is being photographed, the responsibilties to the director are still the same as a film/video DP.

http://www.pixar.com/artistscorner/sharon/interview.html

Jason

So the surface area exposed for each frame is cut in half, does this have any negative side effects?

Bruno Delbonnel cinematographer for Amelie

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0216632/

"Who is a film "by"? Spend a day on the set and you learn. It is by everyone that worked on it." (Bambi vs Godzilla: David Mamet).

A good producer and director will respect the efforts of the crew, no matter how low on the totem pole.

Jason

How many times has a animation studio hired a well known DP? Pixar is the first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork

Jason

The Pentax K20D is the digital camera I have my eye on, especially because of backwards compatibility with older lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012311pentaxk20d.asp

Jason

In one of the vdeios he mentions that if you take the sticker off a metal tape measure, it can be used for something. But he doesn't mention exactly what. Does anyone know what trick he's refering to?

He is supposed to go into more detail later, ACs use a convex mirror to see if there are any problem lights hitting the lens. This is a grip guide though so perhaps its something else, maybe related to this though.

Check out vis a vis pens. The main advantage is that the marks cannot be removed until wet. Also I have seen slates stained by dry erase markers, vis a vis do not stain and wipe away very easily with a damp cloth. I liked using them for focus, easier to write small markings for complicated situations. Also very fast to wipe the wheel and prepare for the next setup.

Jason

I would stick with attaching the arm to a No.2. The idea for a clamp to go on rods is a good one but it's not very adaptable. There are a lot of different places you might want to put a frenchie other than on rods.

A No.2 grip clip? My first frenchie was made with a desk lamps bendy tubing, and a grip clip. I suppose your right about the adaptable features of a pipe clamp, grip clip is cheaper also

what do you think a good length is for the arm? I suppose I can always carry extra pieces to adjust it.

That sounds cool but if you're making the clamp and arm are you also buying the $18.00 flag?

Granted, making everything else still comes in less expensively than $80.00 for the whole thing

but the flag by itself is as the site says an 8" X 13" piece of plastic. At that point you probably could buy

a couple of pieces of plastic or some other material, cut them to suit you and paint everything black or

whatever color you want.

Another AC I work with has some plastic that has a metal sheet in between the pieces, good sturdy and not to heavy, I think I'll use some of that. I think it might already be black.

I began looking for the material that the french flags are made out of on filmtools.com http://www.filmtools.com/clamfrenflag.html. I found that aquarium stores sell it, as well as a few places online, its about 5-10 dollars a foot comes in 1/2 inch and 3/4 inch

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod...e=12-55321098-2

Also I have a plan to buy a pipe cutter and modify it so that it does not cut but clamps to the camera rods, mini cardellini clamps are about $50 dollars vs the 10 dollar pipe cutter.

http://www.buy.com/prod/prima-tools-27504-...1/90140336.html

Ill post some pictures when I finish.

I was thinking of getting this one for EVERYTHING ELSE that I bring on a shoot: http://www.amazon.com/Bucket-Boss-Brand-06...157&sr=1-19

 

Just shows you don't always have to break the bank for "professional" or "custom made" gear. A lot of our tools are similar or the same as those used by handymen and construction workers. So usually their gear is equally as good.

forrest Whitaker has this exact bag in The Panic Room, I bought one its a great little bag, not very tall, but works great for my needs, made of rip stop fabric, It has a divider down the middle, I was thinking about sewing some Velcro onto this so that I could make use of the modular51 pouches.

Jason

BTW, just came across this article about future plans for IMAX. Not good...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080620/media_nm/imax_dc

going to the IMAX used to be fun. The last film I watched at the IMAX was shot on HD, the IMAX experience was less than pleasing. The HD is partly to blame for my headache, but the film just didn't have the engaging footage that IMAX has been known for in the past.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0297144/technical

Jason

I don't know if you ever actually bothered reading my posts

 

-Michael

Michael,

It would be rude not to, I even read a few twice and a couple three times. What you just stated below is what I wished you would have posted on your very first post. You certainly came off as cine-film nut who would not be moved, many refuse to even consider digital as movie making technology. I was short sighted to wish the forum would debate only in scientific quantities. I wanted to discuss scientific advances in both mediums, vision3 certainly is an amazing product, I have had the pleasure to shoot a couple of roles. The RED is the highest end digital I have come into contact with and thus, you can understand it has set the bar for what I know digital to be capable of. I wanted a scope of experience outside of the technology available to myself.

a debate on the pro and cons of cine-film and video as both a technical medium and an aesthetics medium can and should be made in a meaningful way - which is very much a reasonable thing to reflect on for everyone working behind or with a camera.

Jason

...as if automobiles are simply evaluated by MPG figures and 0-60mph data...

I think we both agree at this point that this topic cannot be decided, but for ones self, and each individuals purposes, whether that be financially, or a directors vision that can only be rendered on film. Like one person said its like watching paint dry I now understand what he means.

Jason

No, I am not saying this at all! I am saying that when you set-out to compare two fundametally different means of image acquistition, like a piano and a syntheziser for sound creation, you must have an idea of

a) the universally applicable comparative sets of criteria (which resolution/latitude isn't alone)

Please compare film and digital using the universally applicable comparative sets of criteria. Please help me out in elaborating on just what that criteria should be as I have already mentioned. I suggested and was careful to place a question mark, that resolution and Latitude should be included in this list. You feel they should not be included in the list, I beg to know why sir.

Jason

I know that your question was of a technical nature: that exactly is the problem, because these two technological aspects do not provide any substantial insight into a comparison between video and cine-film - which was your underlying question.

I humbly except your criticism of my view point. Thank you for your interest in this topic.

Your position is that cine-film and digital cannot or should not be compared on any level? I understand they both have aesthetic purposes that are very different, but they can be compared on some level.

Would you rather see a Uwe Bowl movie shot on IMAX, or a Scorsese movie shot on a Genesis?

I would not be surprised if IMAX eventually uses a 65mm digital camera.

I'm confused as to the purpose of this thread...is the issue whether digital will match film in quality or whether digital will become the dominate acquisition medium? I think that digital may one day become the main acquisition medium just like DSLRs are used by more people than 35mm SLRs are. However, I don't think that digital will EVER truly match the characteristics of film. It will never look like film in the true sense. I doubt that in my lifetime I will even see a digital cinema camera that has the smooth "rolloff" of film. I think the main thing that will happen is that audiences will get more used to seeing digital footage in movies and will thus accept it in time. IMHO, digital will never have the "magic" that film does.

compare the two scientifically, texture and emotion aside.

Imagine if we were unable to find the chemicals to produce color film and advance film to the point it is today. Film had an evolution of trying to replicate colors and light the way our human eyes see things. It will be a very long time before the contrast ratio of our eyes are surpassed. Digital will never be film, the same way digital and film will never reproduce images like our eyes can. Now that said, what are similar features between the two mediums that we can discuss, such as resolution and latitude, clearly I opened a can of worms when stating that these were two factors. Correct me if I'm wrong, these certainly are important factors.

There's a whole pile of other reasons film is superior. The "two factors" are more like 20 factors, video will never make it.

 

R,

Which factors are important to you that are quantifiable characteristics of both film and video. How do they measure up? . Yes I agree video will never be film, from a financial standpoint yes video is making it. Also perhaps rather than focusing on just digital advances, is film advancing in terms of these quantifiable factors.

...as if automobiles are simply evaluated by MPG figures and 0-60mph data...

 

What I always find astonishing is that this forum is of a very high quality, yet one comes across such narrow perspectives which reduce a technology without much rhyme nor reason to 'resolution' and 'latitude', even among a group of people who should know better. After all, if that were so, I wonder what keeps all these sub-forums going...

 

Sometimes, I think cine-film truly is dead, due to the achievement by mostly video/electronics-manufacturers to communicate to an entire generation of (future) videographers/cinematographers and in defiance to common artistic sense and professional technological knowledge, that the only relevant comparitors are resolution and latitude - both factors which incidentally can be attained and matched through inevitable technological progress by video cameras "fighting against" cine-film.

 

When I recently talked in a discussion about "texture", one student asked "what I was constantly going on about cloth - as if textiles have anything to do with film. Was I talking about wardrobe?". So much for that...

I would venture to guess that every cinematographer young and old understands the uniqueness of film, it has romance and history. My question was of technical nature. The goal of digital video is to reproduce a similar end result as film. Michael do you feel that film will always be superior for you, no matter how advanced digital becomes. An analog recorder will never clip, sounds role off gradually, much the way light does when reacting to film, digital clips and looks like poop. Digital devices are getting better at handling distortion and clipping though.

So the two factors are resolution and latitude? It seems digital is very close to the resolution of film, the new Epic 5k should surpass film. So is it safe to say all we are waiting for is the contrast ratio. The RED one claims that its chip will hold 10 stops, does someone know how these 10 stops compare to the latitude of film. Perhaps the Epic will hold more stop than the RED one.