Ben Brahem Ziryab

I'm quite sure that nobody in their right mind would use Steadicam for a shot like that. The camera was most likely rigged to the actor's body in some fashion. I don't think a helmet can be used, as the camera with the magazine is too heavy for the helmet to carry.

Oh that MUST be Gordon Willis!

First of all, how old are you? Forget about Den Danske Filmskole (National Film School of Denmark). I know a dusin of alumni from Den Danske Filmskole, and even some of the teachers there. I tell you it's very difficult to get in and they almost never admit first-time applicants into their Directing and Cinematography program. Their selectiveness serves the purpose of making the school seem "highly prestigious" and to preserve the high state funding. You should have applied for Film- & Medievidenskab at København Universitet. The program will give a well-rounded education in film grammar and film history, while it's also free. Additionally, a degree in Film- & Medievidenskab provides for greater opportunity. As for your question to European film courses, try EICAR in Paris (http://www.eicar-international.com/), I know they offer several cinematography workshops. I also have a friend attending the Budapest Film Academy (http://www.budapestfilmacademy.com/) so might want to have a look at that as well. If your goal is a degree at Den Danske Filmskole, I suggest you go to Københavns Film og Fotoskole. Den Danske Filmskole accept several people from the school every year. While it does not guarantee admission, it certainty helps improving your basic cinematography and overall artistic skills.

Hello there... I'm doing a short film next month using a Canon 5D mark II. Most of it will be shot using Carl Zeiss (for Hasselblad) lenses, but I will rent a wide angle lenses as well. As I don't have any experience with Canon glass what so ever, I'm interested in hearing which one these lenses you would recommend for the shoot. Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (For Canon) Canon 17-40 f/4 L Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM My concern is not only in sharpness and optical resolution, but also in their characteristics with contrast and color rendition. Thanks,

Hello, I recently shot a music video on a Steadicam and I was wondering about something. My concern is that I had to take the sled off in between shots (about 5-10 min at a time). The rig was, of course, very heavy with the RED+Lenses+Monitor+2xBatteries+Hard Drive. Arms max. load is 38 lbs. So my question is whether this is normal or not? If no, do you think there is something wrong with the rig or is it just because I'm not physical capable of operating it? Physically I think I'm quite solid, even in comparison to professional Steadicam operators...I'm 5'9" tall, weight 181 lbs and have been pumping iron for nearly 2 years at several times a week. Although I'm weak on cardio. Thanks, Ben

Only watched Inception and The Social Network, but I hope (with all with my heart) that Roger Deakins receives his well-deserved Oscar this year. Although I would like to point out that Wally Pfister did a wonderful job on Inception and to be honest, I'm pretty sure he will win this one. The Social Network is one of those nominees you just don't get, even though it's nice to see the films shot on RED, competing with the big guys.

Hello, Look at this clip from a short, I did back in the filmschool days: What do you or don't you like, in terms of the lighting and visual style? Does the lighting contribute to the emotional aspects of it? And in what way? I'm doing a similar scene in the near future, so I'd be interested in knowing your perception of the cinematography and what could be improved. Thanks,

No, you'll need the speed ring to attach your lights on the chimera. Look for the right ring: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Chimera+Speed+Ring+for+Video+Pro+Bank&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

Let me add: one thing you should know about Wally is that he likes to keep some things very brightly and others very dark (use of very deep and rich black tones). Still though, he lights to maintain detail in even the darkest shadows.

"The EDFC Guide to Digital Cinema Production", is what you need. Believe me, it teaches you everything you need to know about digital filmmaking.

I recommend a set of Kowa anamorphic lenses for the Sankor16c. The rule of thumb with anamorphic lenses, is to expose at a deeper stop. Stopping down to around T5.6 will give you a relatively sharp image. This is due to their curved field of focus, so stopping down will eliminate the worst chromatic aberration and distortion, as well. Either way the Kowa certainly produces a clean image, but, of course, they are not as sharp as spherical Zeiss glass, or many of the modern anamorphic lenses.

Can't wait for it. The 3D sequences is makes me excited about this sequel. Production design, combined with computer generated imagery looks rather fantastic to me. I agree with Phil Rhodes though, in regards to the "real world footage". They should have done the "real world footage" in 35, and let it play counterpart to the large format CGI sequences.

I suppose you mean "naturalistic" lighting? If this is the case, Terrence Malick is one of those directors, in particularly, known for his naturalistic approach to lighting.

You're not just starting another film vs. digital discussion, are you? To answer your question, it depends on many things. As for the "film look", it's easy: People shot HD and make it looks like "film", but you never see people shot film and make it look like HD. So why not just shot film in the first place? Get my point? Shooting HD is always a compromise, unless there's a very specific emotional or stylistic purpose in doing it. To me, these decisions are based on the conceptuality and aesthetics of the script.

I'll just take whatever pays the most! Nah, most short films project tends to be unpaid, so you will do it because you want to help your friends or if the script has the right emotional components. But the truth is, that you're not going to have an experienced DP doing his/hers profession for free. Film industry is hard, and we all have to make a living. For now, I'll take all the projects in the world, if I happen to like the script or director, but most of the times I agree because I need the experience or I'll do it for the portfolio. But all this is most likely to change in my future professional career.

Yes, I find hollywood directors involvement in digital cinematography, very odd as well, e.g David Fincher for "The Social Network". From a DP's point of view, who is primarily interested in aesthetics, we are starting to understand that digital capturing of images can serve the story or style of a film. Quite frankly, "The Social Network" was not one of those movies that really benefits from the digital camera's non-organic electronic response to highlights. I was also affected on Martin Ruhe's statement about "The Social Network", being the first feature projects on RED which looks "ok". I think he missed Soderbergh "Che", where you really see wonderful cinematography and quality to the 35mm blow-up + pretty much 30% of all feature films in Denmark last year, were actually shot on RED ONE. And you're absolutely right Gautam. I don't think you can point out image resolution as being an advantage of digital rawdata systems. MTF measurements still proves modern film stocks to hold far better sharpness and details. Anyone seen Ron Fricke's Baraka on Todd-AO 70mm prints? I tell you, it's quality imagery at it's finest.

I was SERIOUSLY searching for an interview with him today. Loved his work on "The American". Thanks for posting, man.

They are much of the same lenses. The biggest difference between Zeiss ZE and GP.2, I would say is the housing, and price of course. Zeiss CP.2 are intended for cinematography purposes, unlike the ZE glass that is for still cameras. So, of course, they cost a lot more. Anyway, to get to your question. The main difference between them is that the glass on GP.2 is color matched and hand picked by Zeiss. The iris control on the CP.2 is also manual, so you can do iris pulls. Iris and focus barrel are ready for a follow focus. Different front housing. You will also have a common aperture of T2.1 from 28mm to 100mm. And I read somewhere that the GP.2 have a small baffle over the rear element to control lens flare. These are the differences, so they don't really differ that much optically but mainly on the housing. And yes, you can mix them at same stop.

It's all about lighting. I suggest you to see the work of cinematographer Jack Cardiff. Very few cameramen were able to light women as he could, and make them look beautiful as you mention. And yeah the soft and diffused glamorous look is something we associate with heavy Pro-Mist filtration.

Hello, I will break down the similarities and differences between the Zeiss Ultra Primes and Super Speeds: Ultra Primes, of course, is slower than the Super Speeds (1/2-1 stop slower) Both have corner-to-corner sharpness, but Super Speed tends to breath more Zeiss provides a wider range of focal lengths with the Ultra Primes. Ultra Primes are cleaner in terms of optical purity and less likely to pick flares. For me it's matter of whether I have sufficient illumination for the shot, but Ultra Primes are defiantly what I would go for. I tend to use the Super Speeds when I shoot Pro35 on 2/3" sensors, because I need something faster to compensate for the light loss.

Shoot tungsten balanced stock. Use HMI to simulate the moon or 1K lights with CTO for streetlight. Moonlighting gives a slight blue color temperature, but because of the tungsten balanced stock, it should match alright. And use a color meter, to check the bulb temperature of your HMI.

I agree with Adrian, in a sense that a period look can be a thousand different things and approached very differently. For night interior shots, go fro the 7219. Grain structure is drastically improved and it's great for low light. Fuji color stocks are also great, because of their less organic and modern feel, slightly lower in contrast. But I would have a bright, vivid image and get as much information on the negative as possible, with proper lab supervision by Kodak. Leave the rest of the look for the color timing.

I don't really see grain as being a "bad" thing, per say. Grain is most definitely a part of film and there is no such thing as film without grain; that being said, it's somewhere true with fast stocks nowadays to have tremendous fine grain structures, in particularly 16mm stocks have come a long way...

Damn, I need a recipe of that home-brew :) Seriously I still think Kodachrome is a beautiful stock and very original in both dyes and emulsion. WIth K-14 processing becoming less and less available, I'm not blaming people for not using it anymore and ultimately for Kodak to take it off the market. Digital people still pretends that recreating the tones in post, will match the old stocks.

Yeah you'r right Adrian. I will do the test with smoke for the haze, as you suggest. I'm just hoping the production company agrees to it. Anyway, thanks Adrian for taking the time :)