DJ Kast

If he were still alive it would be easily be Conrad Hall, but since that's not the question I'd say Darius Khondji, or Andrew Lesnie, or Roger Deakins, or Dick Pope, possibly more. This is a tough one to narrow down to just one!

I feel like I get what you were going for, and in that realm, you succeded. As far as commenting on cinematography, it's difficult on something like this. I love that its not the same old thing you see for every video, and keep plugging away!

You probably just spread the oils from your thumb around the lens. You need a few drops of lens cleaner on your microfiber cloth. You will probably see streaks in the lens after that, so use a dry portion of the cloth to get rid of those, and you should be back to good!

There are so many "rules" in filmmaking, but as in anything else, rules are meant to be broken. The only thing that I would caution about, is that you need to know the rule, and why you are breaking it. I remember seeing an old western a few years ago(the name escapes me) and there was a shoot out. People were scattering in every direction, and one man was fleeing on his horse. He was riding toward a tree, and as he was being closelined by a branch, the camera switched sides, breaking the 180 rule. (he was traveling right to left and after the cut, he was falling left to right). This is a perfect example of when rules can, and should be broken. It underscored the sense of confusion and randomness to the scurring peoples movement. Certainly it was a concious decision between the director and DP, and it worked. So break the rules, but know them, and know why you are doing it.

I think that neither of the two mediums are perfectly representative of what we see. Film has a better latitude, and more closely resembles what we see, but HD video is more accurate to the detail we see. I think we could debate this forever, but in the end it all depends on what YOU think and want.

Thats really dissapointing. I never got a chance to check out the forum, but it sounds like a great recource. I wish I had known about it sooner. Are there any other great forums I'm missing out on?

here's a link to a lightsource I've used, and was pretty happy with. http://www.airstar-light.us/GSE_paramount.html

To boost your ambient light, I like foamcore on the ceiling, and bounce a light into that, just to give you a few stops of light to work with. Then I'd punch something through a "window"( could be a wall the camera never sees that you could make a window). Then, add motivated sources. That's my suggestion.

For a complete beginner, "The Five C's of Cinematography by Joseph V. Mascelli. And also Blain Brown's "Cinematography: Theory and Practice : Imagemaking for Cinematographers, Directors & Videographers"

This isn't their only use. many people use them to achive less depth of field, mostly in video. The more open the apature, the less depth of field there is, so many will put an ND in, and light with more footcandles to get a desired exposure, and more falloff.

If you use any lights besides what comes with the store, you'll need to gel them with a 1/4-1/2 green depending on how old the flourescents are. Newer lamps are much closer to the 5600k mark. also, windows will be an issue if you white balence to the flourescents. If there is a lot of window light, consider puting a 1/4 blue on the florescents to match the outside light comming in.

Thanks for all the great suggestions.

I read in an issue of AC that for "There Will Be Blood" the gaffer rigged up a box that house numerous peanut bulbs on a circuit that randomly dimmed and flickered. Then he mixed CTO and theatrical reds to augment color. They didn't go into more detail on how it was build, and I was curious if anyone had some ideas on how to get the lights to do this without putting strings of lights on dimmers and have a few guys turning them up and down.

Good to know! I start shooting in the woods of wisconsin this weekend and it'll be chilly.

A lens hood would get rid of lens flare, but help maintain contrast. A polarizer will save you probably a stop or two, but you still need to light your actors to bring them up to a range where you gain detail. I would probably use a muslin or foamcore to bounce light into their faces.

Good Cinematography is different for everybody. For me, though, you need to tell a story with the lighting. Everyone's job on a set is to serve the script, and I feel like you should be able to turn the sound off and not miss a beat. In my opinion the best I've seen so far, is Conrad Hall's "Road to Perdition". There's a log jam at number two, but I've never seen anything like Perdition.

I was Just hired as gaffer on a feature for the first time in my young career, and wouldn't you know it, the film involves a lot of exterior night scenes. This wouldn't be a huge problem, except for the film takes place 90 miles from humanity, and the only light should be comming from moon, or fire for a few scenes. A lantern and a flashlight is used very sparingly. We have a small lighting package(arri 2ks and smaller) and limited grip gear. I'm probably going to hoist an 8x8 foamcore at a 45 degree angle on c stands as high up as possible and from the ground bounce 3 to four 2k's into it and use this as a key- 3/4 backlight, and use a small amt. of foamcore as slight fill. Firelight will be used when the Actors are in the vicinity of fire. Here comes the question: Will this work? I've been racking my mind, and it seems like the most effective way to mimic moonlight with what we have. I welcome any Ideas. P.S. Did I mention it's in wisconsin, in December, and day for night is out of the question! Any help is hugely appreciated.

What is the corellation between Stop Compensation and ASA. By that I mean, you started with and ASA of 500 and knew that you needed to compensate 3 stops, how did you get to 64? Is it just 500 to 200 to 125 to 64? Thanks for the clarification.