Lindsay Mann

Does the can literally have en expiration date on it? I was under the impression that film didn't expire. Provided you keep it in the fridge. I know it gets milky, but can't it last for around 2 years? How is negative different than reversal in this respect?

I've definitely heard of flicker with conventional ballasts for tubes, but I guess it's cheap enough to be worth a shot. The wood is actually pretty light and durable. I'm not sure of a strong enough alternative that is as cheap as wood. But when I find it I'm going to use it. Turning the bulbs sideways is a good idea, although it would be harder to access them. I also haven't noticed much of a green spike at all when I'm combining it with daylight. I'll test it some more though.

Man, I don't know what you're talking about regarding confusion and misinformation on the topic.... :rolleyes: I've shot both 720 and 1080 with the HVX and find 1080 noticeably sharper and richer. Just means you need more drives on set.

And also, I saw Jon Fauer, ASC speak at the Tech Expo in Brooklyn and he claims LED lights are "the future of lighting." Completely dimmable and color temp changeable. I wish my mom never threw out my Lite Brite. ...just kidding I only got to play with lincoln logs.

Wow. Wish I had seen this thread before posting about a fluorescent lightbox. The whole argument sounds exactly like the Prius vs. Hummer argument. Yes the Prius uses nickel in it's battery. Yes nickel mining used to be really horrible. Yes it gets 4 to 5 times better mileage than a Hummer and the Hummer owner will probably sell the car anyway when he gets sick of his new toy and oil prices are at over $100/barrel. It's just a weak argument. Fluorescents last way longer AND are more efficient. What's not to like? Oh, besides the great warm light photofloods provide. There is that. It just means they'll be more expensive.

I finally did it. It's not perfect, but it works. I made a daylight softbank for those pesky interviews where I absolutely need something daylight balanced. I was so sick of gelling tungsten lamps and losing all the light. I made a box with four battens of 23w fluorescent bulbs at roughly 6000k. The woodwork was simple. The wiring proved to be more difficult because I wanted them to be on four legs in parallel so if one bulb went out I wouldn't be screwed on a shoot. Then I realized two things: A) they're fluorescents, they'll last MUCH longer than photo floods, and B) all fourteen pull under like 3 amps, so I don't need separate legs. UNLESS I want to be able to kill some rows individually to cut down the light. I got lazy and only put in two legs. And I miscounted so I still need to pick up two sockets (that's why the top left corner looks dark). Each bulb is the equivalent of around 100w in an incandescent. And it uses less power than my electric toothbrush (I still brush manual, call me old fashioned). Fluorescent SoftBank So the wiring's pretty bootleg, but it works. I'm gonna wrap it up better and put some tinfoil or show card in the back to get more bounce. But anyone got suggestions for the next one I make? It could definitely use some improvements. I can't wait to shoot some video with this thing, I'm eager to see what it looks like. Oh, and the whole thing cost under $180 (excluding the C-stand and pigeon plate).

I guess that's the balancing act. Knowing when to keep your mouth shut and knowing when to open it in order to be noticed. I've struggled with that my whole life. I'm searching for ways to be noticed without opening my mouth. In fact I think that's why I love making films. But maybe that's wrong. I recall an interview with David Lynch where someone asked him to explain Mulholland Drive. He said if he could explain with words what he was thinking, then he wouldn't have to make a movie about it.

Strange. Reflections says, "Like the HMI the xenon oscillates at twice the power line frequency. If the power frequency fluctuates, there is a danger that flicker will occur in the image." But if they only run on DC then it's not fluctuating. Right?

I don't think I've seen an IMAX movie since the 6th grade. I'm not one for the theater. I recently saw No Country For Old Men in the Union Square cineplex where the screen was slightly concave. It was so annoying. It made everything look like a fisheye, and it was either that or the story or the cinematography, but I immediately rushed out to see it again. :P

I was actually a runner on this show. Imagine the most incredible sight you've ever seen and then multiply that by a hundred. I mean I know Scorsese likes his moving camera, but every single camera was on either a dolly, a crane, or a steadicam. As if the Stones couldn't keep me interested. I believe I carried one 1000ft. mag of film back to the truck in 6 hours, and mostly just sat around and watched Keith Richards try to stand up straight. There is an awesome shot in the trailer where Mick walks through the rear door of the theater and the crowd is on their feet. He's backlit by a giant red light. It's been so long, I forget what this light was even called, but I know I had never seen it before. It was about 8 feet in diameter. If anyone knows what it was, I'd LOVE to know. http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_vantage/shinealight/ What's interesting is how much of a role Marty plays in the movie. We had no idea during the filming.

I didn't see this anywhere on the site, I thought I'd post it because it's pretty interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_formats It's interesting to me that IMAX shoots on 70mm with spherical lenses. And I believe the aspect ratio is closer to 1.43 than Academy. Why would this be? So they can use the whole negative? Is there such a thing as an anamorphic IMAX movie? What's also interesting is that people have been shooting 70mm+ since the late 1800's. What gives? What makes IMAX different? I know absolutely nothing about these earlier formats. And p.s. "Super Duper 8" sounds made up.

Wow. Awesome. Thanks. I'm still curious about some DP's preference to use tungsten light on faces. I forget where I read this, but I'll try to find it. Maybe just because it's warmer. Or maybe it was fresnel lamps. I'll look it up. The xenon seems great for the scene in which you used it, Kevin. Otherwise it seems unwieldy and just too hard to control for faces. Do people still have flicker problems with them even with square wave ballasts?

I never read much about these lights, and I can't find a lot of info on them. The only setup I know of is in my Reflections book where Owen Roizman uses one for a commercial. He sends it through a window and bounces it camera right into his subject. He's also got an 8k HMI to fill the window though. My question is, what exactly is the light quality of a xenon? Is the 2k xenon Roizman used an HMI? It says it is daylight balanced, is this the case with all xenons? Is there a ballast? What sizes do these things come in and who makes them? I'm also curious, because I've read that a lot of DP's much prefer the look of a tungsten unit on their subject's face. Is this because it creates more natural flesh tones? Is the quality of the bounced xenon on a face any different from a bounced HMI? Aside from that the xenon will be much much harder. I mean I know I've shot some faces in front of headlights and they don't look great. Then again I'm not Owen Roizman. Damn. That's a lot of questions, sorry.

We used to bang a fresnel through some 1/2 CTO into a flexible reflector of some kind. Tin foil works I guess, but it's loud. Something like the inside of a steel drum would be cool, but that might look more like a disco ball. It seemed to produce some good results. The pancake with a box sounds terrific though. I'm definitely building that.

If Hitchcock were alive today he wouldn't be making web advertisements for wine. I'm pretty sure about this.

Perhaps you're referring to the contrast of the image. The hand is lit from a single source (looks like daylight) and it isn't getting a lot of fill from camera side. I think it looks nice. I've seen way worse, believe me. What stock was this shot on?

No, every book I read tells me it's nearly impossible. Including my Granddad's book which begins, "I am a lucky man. I have been able to spend my life doing what I love to do the most. I am forever glad that none of our children wanted to go into 'show business' for I well know how much luck and timing, over which I had no control, have affected my career." Well, looks like I screwed that one up. He was a great man, and I'm disappointed that I never got the chance to really talk to him about film. But he left a mountain of material behind, including writings, notated scripts, interviews, and tapes. He also left his Tewe director's viewfinder from the 60's or 70's (If anyone knows where to get this fixed, let me know, I'm dying to use it). I thought I'd pass this story along because my grandfather loved to tell it and I think about it almost every day. He flew a B-24 bomber in WWII. One morning before a bombing run, he met a man from another crew. They got to talking over their cereal and dehydrated milk and my grandfather asked him what he wanted to do when the war was over. The man said he wanted to be a poet. Then the man asked my grandfather what he wanted to do. He said he knew he loved theater and drama and thought maybe he could do something with that. Later that day, the man's plane was flying just ahead of my grandfather, received heavy fire and blew up. They didn't see any parachutes. My grandfather decided at that moment, successful or not, he was going to do what he loved for the rest of his life. Because he owed it to himself and to the man. Rufus Burns was his name. So I guess I have to stop being afraid and just do it. March down to the Local 52 and ask how to join. Do whatever I need to do. Because life is short. I'll shoot the low-budget junk, I'll work as an AC or an electric, I'll do something with film, unless I go back to school and become a teacher. I'm not anywhere near as talented as my grandfather. But I might be as lucky. Thanks for all your comments/suggestions. I guess I have to keep plugging away and pay my dues. And marry a girl with good benefits.

I'm on my way out the door right now. I will definitely check out your blog. Can't wait to hear Jon Fauer. Does Abel have RED cameras? I keep only hearing about OffHollywood, but I know they can't be the only ones. What's the next Abel event in NYC?

"Whistling is for cocksuckers and boatsmen. And you're not a boatsman." "You know what really burns my ass? Fire up to here (holds hand at waist level)." I suppose that's just it. He is about 82 years old and whatever he did that was revolutionary he did it 50 years ago. Like the long zoom. I think his compositions are great and his camera movement is unique. But I think his interior lighting does not match the realism of his exterior work. Even including that, he's a pretty amazing guy.

I was fortunate enough to work with Haskell Wexler, ASC recently on a shoot in Maine. It is a feature based on Kaiulani Lee's one-woman play about the environmentalist Rachel Carson, it is called "Sense of Wonder." In fact, they rented my Panasonic HVX from me and I worked as a sort of AC/DIT. It was the first time Haskell had worked with the camera, though he had been shooting video fairly recently for documentary work. There was a bit of a learning curve with the HVX. He was quite fond of saying that my camera was, "for the birds." He's pretty old school and is spoiled by film's latitude, so he and the gaffer weren't too thrilled about shooting bright daytime exteriors. He shot pretty low light inside, which I was worried about because the HVX is pretty terrible in low light, but the lens actually looks best when it's open wide and Haskell was able to get, by far, the prettiest images my camera has ever shot. Naturally, before I went up there I read my Masters of Light, my Reflections book, watched my ASC dvd's, and also watched a bunch of his movies. I saw "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe?" "In the Heat of the Night," "Bound for Glory," "Medium Cool," and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Oh and I watched about 10 minutes of *61, which I had to turn off because the screenplay was so bad. Looked good though. Most were brilliant screenplays and very well directed. I feel like I need to watch Medium Cool again to wrap my head around it. And I can appreciate it's originality, merging documentary with narrative. I guess my question is what makes this man one of the most celebrated DP's in the ASC? I think his work on In the Heat of the Night was pretty astounding because you could tell it was low budget and he didn't have a lot of lighting. But they lifted the ceiling and lit through a silk so they could shoot fast and I find it distracting and unrealistic visually. The zoom on the bridge is a cool shot, but obviously it's dated. In Bound for Glory he went with a low contrast dustbowl look, and I congratulate him for being able to shoot through all that dust. But at times I felt it went even a bit too dark and flat. My guess is that A) it was a terrible transfer to DVD and B) he didn't have a lot of lighting on location. Cuckoo's is great, but the story and acting are really the highlights of the film. It was nice how the cinematography supported them and didn't get in the way. I think that Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolfe? is one of his best works (I say this not having seen Matewan for which he was nominated for an ASC award, I should probably see that). He got close to the actors and was able to keep a stage play interesting for 2 hours. It was loose and quirky and his use of focus on two subjects foreground and background was amazing. But what do you think makes him great? Because he served the story well? Because he was able to do a lot with small budgets? Because he knows a lot of dirty jokes? I feel like he's sort of a mystery. So highly respected, but never a real big hit after 1975, barring of course "Canadian Bacon" in 1995. Part of it is because he's so into documentary. Just curious about your thoughts...

I feel like I've hit a wall here. I'm 24, living in New York, shooting whatever I can. I have no day job because they drive me nuts, but work is just hiding from me. I know I love films and shooting is the only thing I feel qualified to do in this world. I want to write and direct, but so does everyone, huh? I have a website: www.lindsaymann.net I also have rent and bills to pay. My grandfather, Delbert Mann, was a director and actually won an academy award in 1955. But at this point he's too old to give me any advice, and I doubt many people remember him. I want to do things on my own here in New York, but I just can't seem to get noticed. Maybe my questions would be better answered by a shrink or my mother or something, but here they are: -How do I advertise myself better? -What else can I do to advance my career besides learning as much as possible about film? -Do I shoot the unpaid jobs just to build more and more material? -How do I support myself in this expensive city? -Is it dangerous to get sucked into being a DP if I truly want to write and direct something? -How do I remain unique and desirable when there is so much competition? -Do other people have these questions, or am I the only one? I realize that's a lot of questions. I will continue to peruse this board and learn from all of you. Thanks.

central booking

The DVX100 is, in my opinion, THE best miniDV prosumer camera that ever existed. Beautiful (and successful) stories shot in SD: 1. Hoop Dreams 2. Iraq in Fragments (Best cinematography, editing, directing at Sundance) 3. Festen ("The Celebration") I don't know about Born into Brothels, but that and War Photographer (about James Nachtwey) should knock their socks off. Although I think War Photographer was HD.. whatever. There are plenty of amazing movies shot in SD. And Panny's 24p is simply incredible. If your students are worried about resolution, make them shoot on film for christ sake.

Looks like a lot of great advice is going on here. I'd love to get some feedback on the website, the short films, and the reel. This is by far the best website on the internet and I trust you people. I'm particularly worried about the quality of the images in my reel and the repetition (I work the same actors a lot). In addition, any advice for getting gigs now that I own an HVX? I live in New York. Thanks so much. http://bastardjohn.com You'll find the reel in the "Films" section. The rest of the site is in shambles at the moment.

reading on macworld.com about the new Canon XL H1, I found that "Canon doesn?t state this explicitly, but the HDV specifications allows for 1,920-x-1,080 capture only at 60i... 30p and 24p are captured at 1,440-x-720." A) why would this be the case? B) is this the case with the new HD Panasonic coming out also? C) I've strongly considered getting an XL 2, should I even bother with Standard Def anymore? Should I save and buy the new HD cam, or wait until it comes out so the XL2's price drops? Been needing a decent camera for a very long time. All suggestions welcome. Maybe I should just scrap the idea and find a super 8 camera.