Stuart Brereton

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.

This is a gel pack for a Sodium Vapour look, not Mercury. For a Mercury Vapour look on tungsten, you could try 3/4 Plus Green & Rosco Cal Colour 30 Blue. This is the combination used by Paul Cameron.

I've had a Minolta Autometer IV F for about 10 years now and never had any problems with it. It's simple to use and read. They have now been replaced by the Autometer V F , so you should have no problems picking one up cheaply on ebay.

Time code is often set to 'Free Run' when jam-syncing cameras or other time code devices together. The more normal setting would be Record Run. Somewhere in your cameras' menu, probably the page where you set the TC, will be a option to switch between Free Run & Rec Run.

Technicolor do still process 16mm, and I've found them to be cheaper than Soho Images. have fun...

I don't have any direct dealings with ICE, but I know that they are the Aaton main dealer for the UK, and they have a very good rep. As you're going to be in and around London, you could try Panavision in Greenford, or Joe Dunton & Co a bit further out in Hertfordshire.

Try Technicolor in London. They have a Drop off/Collection office on Berwick Street, Soho. The phone number is 0208 759 5432 from the UK. I've always found them to be reliable and affordable.

Brian, I don't call one webpage of work-arounds, which don't work for everyone, a satisfactory response from a major manufacturer. There are many, many people who have the same problem with Compressor, and Apple has had ample opportunity to fix this problem in one of their ProApp updates, but they haven't. Given the cost of their 'Professional' software, I would have thought the least they could do was solve problems like this... Anyway, my original problem with the H.264 encoder in QT7 was not that it's bad, just that it's no better than Sorenson 3. I've tried re-encoding some of my promos, but found that, at the same file sizes, Sorenson seems to be just as good as H.264. So, all I can figure is: A. there is a knack to getting great results out of QT7/H.264, or B. Apple has been overselling the benefits of H.264....

Maybe I should persevere with QT7. Compressor doesn't work for me. All I get is an error 'Cannot connect to background action' or something. It's a well known conflict which Apple have done precisely nothing to solve, and it means that a large part of their flagship media package doesn't work- at all! I always liked Cleaner, the presets return really nice results, but the fact that they still haven't produced a work around to deal with h.264 doesn't say much for their R&D. ho hum...

I've seen some great looking WMV files (the BMW films, for instance, look great) but unfortunately I'm Mac based, and Microsoft has understandably not been too bothered with updating their Media Player for OS X. The H.264 encoder in QT7 is, as Phil points out, awful, and Cleaner 6 doesn't seem to know what to do about H.264. It recognises the CoDec, but returns errors every time I try to use it. So, what are Mac users out there using to encode H.264? Is there any software for OS X that can do it well, or should I just stick with Sorensen until Apple get their act together and put a decent encoder into Quicktime?

32 - 36 fps is pretty common in promos if you still need to lipsync. It's got a unusual look to it, but it doesn't scream slow-motion at you. It's also not too difficult to mime to the track. If you just want slow motion of the band in action then half speed is probably enough (48-50fps)

I'm glad it's not just me that is having trouble with the Quicktime H.264 encoder. Any recommendations for a better software solution?

Apologies if I'm asking this question in the wrong place. I've heard a lot about H.264 and it's incredible quality. I've watched a number of film trailers encoded in this way, and the quality has been amazing considering the small file sizes. However, when I'm encoding my own stuff, H.264 doesn't seem quite as good, in fact I'm finding that good old Sorenson 3 has got the edge in a lot of ways. I'm not the most computer-savvy person in the world, so it's probably something I'm doing wrong. Does anyone have any pointers for getting the most out of H.264? Thanks.

Careful Phil, those nuts may contain traces of nuts...

Thanks, Stephen, I've used the SD-I to downconvert as well. I was pleased with the results, but I am curious to know if there is a qualitative difference between that and a Card based downconvert. Stuart