David Desio

Hi James,

Im interested in those lenses, shall we chat via email?

daviddesio.com/Portfolio/Cinematography

Critiques welcome

I like to use a 4 to 6 foot slider, you are right George, it allows us to cut after the move and also cover a little more ground making the move IMO worthwhile.

30 minute long take?

Im not sure the batts will last that long for continuous shooting. Maybe....Test it first.

As for puling, without knowing the route I don't know which would be best. I'd do a combo of monitor and marks/watching the OP. You are not wide open so have a little room for error. Is the OP going to be doing rehearsed moves? Playing JAZZ?

I work with an OP who plays more Jazz than anything and I mostly stick to the monitor, glancing at him now and then as well for distance guesses. Puling from the monitor is tough though, you are more reacting than being active to his moves.

Does the OP have a wireless system? He should.

I like to pul with a digital Preston, but a digital Bartec is also good. Analog Bartec...in a pinch.

I dunno, I quite like the one-source lighting, lke the old masters of painting. Horses for courses I suppose. I too have watched some try to go for a soft source by:

1. Using a 4-bank but from about 15 feet away to light the wide, not an array of banks, but ONE

2. use a smaller unit marched in (the smaller the unit the softer the light was their thinking) and then diff the crap out of the light and wonder why their 650 is barely putting any light out for the key.

If it is my place I will quietly fix the light and gently suggest a better way. Hard to do if those doing the lighting also sign the checks.

as for the windows as a source, you don't need to have them open for light to come through them. Unless the characters would close the shutters, light would be coming through the windws, even if there are curtains in place.

As for the aproach to the WS, well there is a practical in the photo that I'd probably use to establish the ambience and mood of the room. Depending on how the camera is moving, pound a large source into some unbleached muslin from floor level to help lift the levels of the room but allow the sources to "do " the work. If this is a daytime scene, use the windows as the sources, and throw some large sources through the windows (10k) maybe a little haze for atmosphere.

it really depends on what you like better. I have generally found that pounding a light in to the ceiling will give you an overall ambience, which is different from an overhead source, which sounds like what you are going for. As for the color, thats really up to you as well and is dependent on mood, look, art ,etc.

I got it to work, we had to change the resolution to 1920x1080. That doesn't seem like the right way of doing it. The icon would flash then go away but no grab was getting saved.

hey all,

Im sure this is a simple solution, but how do you perform frame grabs to an sd card? I have pressed the Grab button but nothing happens, the little SD Camera Icon flashes but that is it.

Any takers?

I have to side with Mike about the safety issue vs getting the shot. No shot is worth your life or ending up in a wheel chair for if it can be avoided. I'm the cam op he mentioned riding backwards in the car with a full sized camera on my shoulder because a 3/4 profile looked better than a full profile. In hindsight it was a very unnecessary risk given that the driver/talent was a bad driver to begin with.

We recently had an accident out here in LA involving a helicopter, cinematographer, pilot , and producer (I think). I'm sure they took more precautions than I did and tragedy struck.

Point is we are not saving lives we are making entertainment and it's not worth it to put yourself in harms way if it can be avoided.

Hey Greg, nh was just reading the firts page or 2...i stand embarrassed

FFS aren't people tired of this debate already? Look if a cinematographer can make a beautiful image, it doesn't matter to anyone but armchair critics and snobs what the format was. To lump all digital cinematographers in to a category that basically calls them all talentless is like saying every painter that uses acryllics instead of oils is a hack, or water colors, etc. It's ridiculous. When shooting digital you still have to light it, compose it, execute it. When film was king there were still terrible films being made. Our world has changed and I don't think the format has anything to do with our culture's shifting tastes.

I Agree with Bryan, I'd do if it were me. The only thing I don't agree with is the statement about horror films. Whats wrong with them? They always get a bad rap but people still pay to see them don't they? Nothing wrong with horror IMO. Even if it leads to more horror...

You have to go with how you feel about the feature, it might also be worth checking out who they've got in the cast. Good actors can make a big difference on a low budget production.

Well, is the rate offered worth risking your gear for? Are they insured? Are you normally busy during that time?

I've just sent the director this e-mail.

Well you did what you could. Sometimes you you have to know when to bail out. Is there an actual producer on this film?

Like everyone has said, it's a student film. Sometimes they are great and the rest of the time they are very trying and disorganized. But at the end of the day its a student film, meaning everyone is for the most part learning on it. If you are afraid of not being paid, ask him to sign a deal memo, maybe even ask for half of your fee before shooting begins. you know to cover the pre-pro part of it.

Hello,

 

The conundrum is to me, you shoot clean, just for the story, you don't get noticed, but a majority of drama is images that don't get noticed. Bad example I know, but the only example that springs to mind, the average punter doesn't understand the beauty in Deakins images in No country for old men, daggy hotel rooms, etc. If I was able to, not saying I can, but as a whole, shoot where you don't get noticed, how do you get noticed?

 

The other issue is I have shot convincing night for day, etc, trouble shot the best of problems, but unless I'm in a room and saying what I have done, they won't understand the process or what I have done to make it happen.

 

We all know our job extends beyond images, but how do you sell your skill sets beyond your reel? The other assets you have acquired?

 

Thanks

Im not sure exactly what you are asking. Do you mean how do you let people know what exactly went into each set up on your reel? Not everything you shoot requires the cinematography to be overtly present and knowing when to scale it back is a skill in itself. The "average punter" might not understand the technical side of Deakins' images but the mood that those images convey is universally understood, otherwise they wouldn't work. You can't shoot, paint, write, etc. only for yourself or the "elite" folks who know all of the technical components. That's not why you do what you do. At the end of the way you are part of a whole and if your part is working, the whole picture has a better chance.

Well, I think, that you've got me wrong. I'm not asking what should I buy to get "film look", as I know that my current equipment can create that kind of look. I'm asking what should I practice to make these movies better technically. All about the technical way of shooting films I know so far is from "behind the scenes" or tips of pros shooting on DSLRs. Using flat profiles, color correction, filters... And I know, that if a professional DP would take my camera he would shoot something that looks much better. And I don't mean here content of the movie, camera movement, I mean only "technical quality". Hope you understand now what I'm asking about.

I didn't mean to offend you, just making the general statement that you can't buy the look or use certain filters and tricks, and just learn the best most important aspects and expect to get results that have taken some years to achieve. Its a combination of practice and know-how, really that's it. You say your work doesn't look professional? Well what are the differences? Apart from just the technical stuff? Production design? Location? Camera placement?

I'd say yes learn the best settings for your camera, learn how to get the most from it. At the same time learn the basic principles of photography like composition etc. Learn basics of cinematography, there are many great books on the subject. And go out and practice.

This thread is interesting. Here we have a student of the craft (and yeah we are all students 'till the end) trying the popular method of buying the right gear to make "cinematic magic", while we have masters saying that the best thing to do is to practice...the student seems to acknowledge this but still hold on to the idea of buying the right gear and such.

All too often I come across people that seem to throw money at the picture (thus taking money from the rates for crew, etc.) hoping that it will give it that "film look".

I love that today one can buy a camera for under a thousand dollars that technically is better than a 10 thousand dollar cam from 15 years ago (digitally speaking). But like others have said, if the gear is what made the images capture that "magic" we would all be shooting stellar images every time we went out. Instead what has happened is that very often we see extremely sharp and brilliant mediocre images.

I'm not going to pretend that I haven't been guilty of wishing for more/better gear on shoots and laying blame accordingly, but the truth is that when that happens I feel guilty for not making it work with the tools I have at the time. Recently I was an Operator for a feature that was shot all on DSLR's with canon glass, no fancy camera tools, mostly hand-held and a 1-ton grip and lighting package...guess what? Because the DP and gaffer were very competent the film looks great! Never once did I hear the DP complain or lust after better gear. He knew the limitations and adjusted his plan accordingly.

Wow long-winded.

Sounds like he wants the china balls to play in the shot, like The Prestige...no? Don't have an answer other than going up in power for the balls and shooting during a time of day other than noon. Maybe 4 in the after noon?

Im not being presumptous about anything. You were saying that some of the producers you work with are penny pinchers. Okay, fair enough. Now you say they care about getting "the best possible image at the lowest cost." That was my point all along. You still have yet to say what type of camera package said producers were in favor of. If it was an Alexa, RED, Viper, etc then it is highly unlikely that the producer was able to procure said packages for less than basic 35 package with short ends or a higher end S16 package with stock.

 

And it wasnt insulting to call you a bottom feeder. Maybe you arent but I dont know how else to take it if you are working with such a tight producer who cannot even see the merits decent lighting, how is such a producer going to care about the quality of your work vs some student or amateur who will underbid you? That's why it seemed plausible to think that you were the lowest bidder, or at least among the lowest bidders but the highest quality. Call me crazy but a producer who doesnt value lighting probably wont value experience much either.

Ok, to clear things up, these producers went back and forth depending on the project, between a varicam and a RED package. They are professional, but they do not like to cut into their profit margin. These are commercial guys I'm talking about. These guys DO in fact value experience and pay for it, for the most part. Yes, they couldn't afford a $1200/day DP but that doesn't mean I'm underbidding those guys. They are on a different level and not even competing for the same jobs. Also, though the camera package and stock may be about the same for film and digital, the post part of it would still be more expensive. See these guys, and a lot of people that I have worked with who originate on digital formats (in the commercial world) have access to basic editing suites at the very least and can ingest the footage, make an EDL, and even do a rough cut before sending it to an editor if that is even part of the workflow. Some do the post themselves, then build that into the price they charge the client.

Trust me, I'd rather not work for low-budget producers but I also don't see any offers for bigger shows coming my way at this point and I need to eat and build up a name for myself. I don't know of any other way than starting at the bottom.

David, I am not insulting. You said that on some shoots you have a hard time convincing penny pinching producers to even rent HMIs. Now you turn 180 and claim that those same producers pay you a good rate and rent a nice digital package. You arent making sense.

 

Unless the "package" was a DSLR package, it isnt that great of a savings to shoot digital over say, S16MM? Unless, like I said, you "know a guy" who owns a rental house and is going to free ride you which most of us dont (at least I don't.)

 

If you disagree with this, put up some financial figures to back it up. Otherwise, don't accuse me of insulting you when you make producers out to be stingy and that would make you the lowest bidder (aka bottom feeder.)

By calling me a bottom feeder you are insulting me. Yes, those penny-pinching producers were the SAME ones who paid a nice day rate for the department heads. They also wanted us to get them the best possible image for the lowest cost. I.E. they wanted to know why we needed a light that was so expensive when we could get tungsten units for less, or why the 1st couldn't do the job of both a 1st and 2nd. Producers HAVE to be stingy, it's their job to keep the budget in check and save where they can, isn't it?

By your response you seem to only take the big jobs that come your way...great. Glad you have progressed but for some of us working stiff who need to pay bills, our bill collectors don't care where the money comes from as long as the check clears. I have worked on projects that i'm proud of and ones that were merely a paycheck and a way to get my name out there. There's a difference between being a bottom feeder as you say, and someone who is trying to advance their career. We ALL start somewhere unless we are blessed to have such immaculate talent that we can jump right in to the big budget world.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but man, being presumptuous about someone you've never met irks me.

As for the film vs. digital cost, i'm not arguing your point at all...see my original post.

David, me thinks you should not deal with such Producers if you actually want to make a living. As you know, Profit = Revenue - Expenses. And the wear and tear on your gear makes you very unlikely to profit if you are getting a low rate to begin with. I would think all DPs would push for film as a sort of test of what class of Producer you are working with. Unless of course you like being a bottom feeder.

Really? We're gonna insult people now? I was merely making a point and using past experience as an anecdote. By the way in dealing with such producers, I made a very nice day rate on those jobs. I Do not own a camera package but again was just making a point. Also, why would one immediately push for film nowadays? Unless they are ONLY doing the big shows; that would be ridiculous for every project given that they are all different beasts in regards to budget, needs etc. In a perfect world sure, but I don't know many DP's at my level anyway who have impressed a producer by blowing up the budget just to make a point.

I think What Nigel was saying is that for the smaller productions that can get a digital camera thrown in the mix for a part of the DP's rate, film is way out of reach. As the budget's become more legit, that gap seems to shrink rapidly. BUT, try convincing a penny-pinching producer who questions your choice to rent HMI's for a shoot or better yet, hire a 1st AC AND a 2nd, that the project could be shot on film for about the same amount of cash.

Wait...you're an operator, but you're considering working for free as an assistant? What's the point? It would be different if you were a 1st and you were considering operating for free, but taking a step backwards for no money makes absolutely no sense.

 

Anytime anyone works for free they're financing someone else's project, regardless of whether they're bringing equipment or not. Part of the financing includes money to pay the crew...

 

There are good reasons to do freebies sometimes. In this case I can't see any reason.

I agree Brad. You are in LA? message me because I have a question for ya. Anyway, yeah being a 1st is not really a career goal of mine and this is no offense to all the 1sts out there, just a very different mind is required for the job. Though I have 1sted before, not my cup o' whiskey. The only reason I see for doing it is to get in with this DP, do him the favor and feel it out for a few days. If it seems like a waste, I find a way out I guess. Here's to hoping that way out is a whole lotta paid gigs...