Stuart Brereton

When I was doing Focus, I always used to insist on a 2k right next to the lens on night shoots. That way the lens markings were visible from 30 feet away and the lamp kept me nice and warm..... ;-)

Shannon, Contrary to what you might believe, we all care much more about how the Canons' pictures look, than how they are recorded. However, we have all heard so much hype about this and every other HDV camera that we remain sceptical until proof is offered, which, from your own quote above, you could have done immediately, but didn't, hence this four page thread. Sorry if you feel mistreated.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. The thing is, you come across like either a know-it-all, or someone on Canons' payroll.

'what you did' was join a forum 2 days ago and instantly start telling people that you know better than them. This place is here for an exchange of knowledge (mostly), so we usually like to leave the attitude until we know each other better :-)

Charlie Seper leaves.....Shannon Rawls joins.... the gift that keeps on giving.....

Strangely, I find myself in complete agreement with Phil. This has never happened before, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it.... BTW, nice photo, Phil ;-)

Those 'For your consideration...' ads generally features the same images as are used in the films' posters and other publicity. The Academy is being asked to consider the film as a whole, not just a few stills.

I don't know if anyone else has come across these Softboxes, but I just bought a couple on spec, new, through ebay. The larger of the two is 4'x3', easily as well constructed as certain other expensive brands, and cost me just $16.00. There is a bit of an issue with the speed ring, which I'll need to get an adaptor made for, but on the whole, I'm amazed at how good they are! If you're looking to buy a softbox, and don't want to spend $$$$ (or ££££s) these are a very good alternative.

I would imagine that is the case. We've certainly never been asked to provide them with releases, and I usually try not to delve into legal matters any deeper than I have to ;-)

Release forms are required for actors and extras. In fact, the release forms usually form part of the 'deliverables' in the sense that the Label could refuse to pay for the video if the Releases hadn't been signed. The artist isn't required to sign a release. Their participation in their own video is taken for granted!

Production companies do not automatically 'have' copyright, which they then relinquish to the label. There is never any question that ownership resides with the Record Company. What the contract says is that the Director and Producer will never attempt to assert ownership. It's a subtle difference, granted, but most legal definitions are. It's specific to any production company working under contract to the record industry. Royalties are paid to Copyright holders, whoever they may be, which in this case is almost certainly going to be the Artist or Label. It is possible that royalties may be paid to a third party, but this would be at the discretion of the Copyright owner, and would not imply any transferral of ownership Not hurt.....amused.

The point is that a music video is just a commercial for a product, not the product itself. Any royalties that are paid are paid because of the Music, not because of the video, no matter how good it is. As it says on the VPL website, 'any copyright holder is eligible to join'. A Production Co. is not the copyright holder. Any proper contract will specifically ask for any rights to be relinquished by both Director and Producer. It will also indemnify the record label against third party claims (say, from crew members). Even if you as a Producer or Director don't sign a contract, you still have NO rights to the music and the nature of your 'work for hire' puts any claim of ownership of the images into a very grey legal area. So, if you were Director/Producer of a promo, and didn't sign a contract, and you're willing to pay for a copyright lawyer to find out if you're entitled to a part share in bugger all, and you're willing to fight a record label for it, then go ahead. Otherwise, just enjoy the fact that something you were paid to do has actually made it onto the TV.... I guess I could be making it up, but it's more likely that as a partner in a production company that has made nearly a hundred promos, I have come across this question before.....

Royalties are paid on music video because the Music is being played, not because the video is being shown. Any royalties collected are therefore distributed to the artist and record label. Even if a production company were to retain an interest in a video that it made (which would be highly unusual) they would still not receive royalties as they're are not paid on the Video, only on it's soundtrack.

It's a shame that the one person who spends more time than just about anyone helping people with questions just like yours is probably not going to take the time to answer any of your questions because you won't tell us your name. Is it really that much to ask, considering how much information and help you're asking for?

It would be highly unusual for anyone except the record label and artist to receive royalties from their work. The Director and Producer specifically give up any rights to the video in their contracts, so other crew members would have zero chance of royalties, even if royalties were paid on music videos, which they're not. It's a nice idea, but it just doesn't happen.

Tim, you've probably already tracked them down, but LTMs' US address is: LTM Van Nuys 7755 Haskell Avenue, Van Nuys, CA 91406 Phone 1 (800) 762-4291 Phone (818) 780-9828 Maybe they can help. If not, is there any reason why an Arri or Strand ballast won't work?

There should be no implications as far as the Lab/TK facility are concerned. You would want to tranfer the full frame to tape and letterbox it later, once you've cut the film.

I've done a couple of music promos on s16 where it's later been letterboxed to 2.35:1. If you use a common top line for the frame, then at least you know you have your head room OK, rather than doing a center extraction and having to imagine where both the top and bottom of frame will be. It's very simple to then letterbox in FCP and re-rack the picture up or down as necessary. Obviously it's preferable to have ground glass markings for 2.35, but it can be done without, as long as you're careful with your composition.

The guy that asked that question is not a 'know nothing kid', but the owner of this site, and as such, I think he deserves a little respect, as do most of the people who frequent this board. I've been reading your ill-mannered posts in another thread, and I can't figure out what your problem is. This is a forum for Cinematographers and people interested in such. If that doesn't include you, perhaps you should find somewhere else to go and rant & rave. If you decide that a Cinematography forum is somewhere you want to be taken seriously, then rein in the attitude, learn some manners, and try to have a rational discussion.

If you light their faces from the opposite side to your camera positions, then any shadows on the walls will be behind camera. You can have your lights as low as you like. Lighting this way also places the shadow side of the face nearest camera, which for me is more appealing as you get better modelling of facial features.

As far as I know, neither Chapman-Leonard or Fisher sell these dollies - they only lease them. Even if they did sell, the retail would likely be many thousands of dollars. If you're determined to buy, you may find something like a Focus track and Dolly from Egripment is enough for your purposes, they're certainly a lot cheaper!

You don't say what the film is about. Is it a thriller, a comedy, a horror film? The story will be a major factor in your lighting choices. How 'realistic' do you want your lighting? If you're looking for naturalism, then soft toplight is probably the way to go, using bounce cards to fill in the actors' eye sockets a little, and perhaps some sort of eyelight, maybe a mini-flo taped to the matte box. If it's a more dramatic piece, then you can take a few liberties with the light, make it harder, colour it, cut it or snoot it into distinct pools, or whatever takes your fancy. Maybe the elevators' light is broken, and it's just illuminated by emergency light, who knows? I think you're pretty much stuck with toplight and fill - an elevator is after all, just a box. You do have a little flexibilty in how you approach it, but that will inevitably be influenced by the story.

Richard, I hope you're joking.... David did go on to qualify his statement.... and the thing is that actually, cinematography doesn't require any formal education. Film Schools are a comparatively recent thing. Before them, generations of DPs' learnt their trade on the job. I went to Film School, but I'm not sure that I learnt anything there that I couldn't have learnt on set, or for myself.

Mitch, Which of the various Zeiss Contax primes do you own? Are they Planar, Sonnar, Distagon or Biogon? Which series would you recommend for an Aaton kit? Thanks Stuart

In a pinch, I have used the TV safe markings as a guide for 16:9 top and bottom. It's not exact, but it gives you an idea where to aim. Otherwise, without reliable markings, I'd be tempted just to shoot 4:3, leave a little extra headroom, and worry about the letterbox in post.