Stuart Brereton

My opinions, Tyler, are always quite clearly stated as such. I don’t indulge in making appeals to authority by fabricating quotes and attributing them to famous cinematographers. I don’t make up stories about faulty equipment and pretend that ‘many people’ have told me about ‘known issues’. I don’t claim to have more experience than I actually do, and I certainly don’t have the arrogance to tell award winning ASC members how to shoot their movies. All that crap might play well at your local film society, but in the real world, people know better.

Lots of quotes, but in not one of them does he say that film looks better. Fact free zone, as usual. If you have a point to make, provide evidence. Otherwise, state that it is nothing but your opinion. "I didn't state any facts" Tyler Purcell 10/30/2019

SR mags are not hard to load. There’s a witness mark on the bottom of the mag which tells you how long to make the loop. You might find yourself making the loop too short or too long by one perf, but that’ll just mean that the camera runs a little noisy.

Robin, Internet forums are fact free zones. Opinion, conjecture, and fabrication are the currency here. Tyler already explained this to us.

I used them once a few years ago, and was disappointed with the output. I'd rent a couple of M18s and double diffuse.

It's the diameter of the top of the bowl that is important. 75mm, 100mm & 150mm are the standard sizes.

Thousands of dollars to join. Around $1000 per year in dues. 1% of your earnings. As the old joke goes, you can't spell MAFIA without IA... There is no fee to join the roster, but it can take weeks or even months to get your days approved, so don't leave it until the last minute.

I think you need to keep the lights fairly hard, so that you can control spill into areas where you don't want a certain color. Perhaps choose a soft source as a base color, and then add harder accents in other colors. In terms of exposure, you pretty much have to underexpose in order to get that strong saturation. Noise shouldn't be a problem unless someone tries to crank up the exposure in post, but then they'll be ruining the colors anyway.

Same here. Almost never go wider than 25mm, and increasingly never go longer than 50mm.

Phil, I was making more than that 10 years ago on shows like Casualty. That’s hardly big money TV.

Was that ever really in doubt, Phil?

Certainly interested to take a look, Robin. I have a friend who pre-ordered one, and is expecting delivery in January. We'll definitely be doing some testing.

Satsuki, AJ, lovely work! I’ve just wrapped what I think was my eleventh feature with Sony cameras. I always play around a bit with LUTs from film to film. This time I was using the Arri X-2 709 LUT with an exposure compensation to 800 ISO. It looks very much like Sony’s LC709a LUT, but with better blacks. I fully expect color correction to be the usual simple job of applying the LUT, and balancing exposures shot to shot. Next time, I’m going to take a look at the Venice LUTs and see how they look.

I’d say you derailed the thread when you started telling fairy tales about broken Arri Minis. Tim Tyler regards his forum as being a place for facts and shared knowledge. So do most of the members. It’s apparently only you who sees it as an opportunity for self aggrandizement and make believe. Respect is earned, not given away.

This should be pinned on every single one of your posts.

Could they have just switched to film without changing anything? No. Forgetting the focus problems that they would inevitably have had, they would also have been dealing with stock that was 1 1/3 stop slower than their digital sensor. Push process you say, well, pushing one stop doesn’t actually result in a one stop increase in density, it’s slightly less. A two stop push is even less accurate. Also, pushing affects the highlights far more than the shadows. The toe of the curve, which is where all their picture information was, would probably only gain around a stop of density, while gaining a lot of grain. Blocked up shadows would become muddy and noisy. Those low key moments would have looked a mess. So why not light to a higher level? Why not indeed? You’d have to ask Larry Sher why. Whatever his reasons, he and Phillips made a conscious decision to shoot in the way they did, and under those conditions, it would have been impossible to use film and have it look good. Obviously, Larry Sher is just a ‘digital dp’, and he doesn’t have your huge range of experience. I’m sure your results would be much better.

So you don't know, and you weren't there, and this statement was just another example of you speaking beyond your experience. Here's a few reasons that maybe you hadn't considered. Perhaps Larry Sher likes the look of the Alexa sensor at 1600 ISO. Perhaps the balance of highlight and shadow range are to his taste. Maybe he likes the noise floor. Maybe when lighting a dark and dramatic movie, he likes the sets to be dark and dramatic. Maybe he feels it helps the actors to be in an environment that echoes the journey their characters are taking. Just about the only thing you got right was that it had nothing to do with budget. There are many other reasons why he could have chosen to shoot the way he did. I don't know them, and neither do you, and despite your obvious lack of respect for his ability and knowledge, you don't have the right to criticize him.

And you know this how? Were you there?

You’re right, Tyler. There is absolutely no reason why ASC member Larry Sher would have been aware of 3 perf cameras, or push processing. I’m equally sure that he pays no attention whatsoever to technical developments by camera manufacturers. if only he had had the benefit of your knowledge, and had asked you for advice.

Actually, Tyler, I have seen the movie. I don't comment on things I have no knowledge of. I'd like to hear how you know how much light they "threw at it", simply from watching it. That's a magical skill. Of course, you know more than I do. Apparently, you also know more than Larry Sher as well.

Yes, I'm sure that Larry Sher, ASC, was completely unaware of modern video taps, 3 perf, and push processing. Perhaps he should have consulted you before making his decision, as you are evidently better informed about film technology than he is. Larry Sher is on record as saying that the movie was going to shoot on 35mm well into pre-production, and it only changed because of the practicalities of the way they wanted to shoot. Greg Irwin has described how they shot much of the movie wide open, and underexposed. To shoot that way, right down in the toe of the negative, and then try to push process to increase ISO just results in mushy, grainy images because all your picture information is way down the curve. I know you'll say you do it all the time, and perhaps you do, but the quality of your results remains to be seen. It's also hugely difficult for focus when working wfo at low light levels. There's simply not enough contrast in a film viewfinder to see clearly when it's that dark, and even HD videotaps are no substitute for a digital signal straight from the sensor. So, I stand by my statement that it would have been almost impossible for them to shoot Joker on film, because of all the things they didn't want to have to deal with. Could they have changed their workflow, their working practice, their lighting package? Yes, of course they could, but in the real world, not everything is subordinate to format.

I was referring more to the fact that there is pervasive snobbery about shooting film, as if you are not a 'proper' DP if you don't shoot film, or not a 'proper' Director. I see people jumping through all kinds of hoops, and sacrificing budgets so that they can shoot film, regardless of whether it's the most appropriate choice. There were comments made here recently, for instance, about how Joker looked great, but would have looked better on film. That's an opinion that is manifestly incorrect. It would have looked like an underexposed mess.They shot digital because it would have been almost impossible to shoot on film. To claim that film would have been a better choice is to ignore the realities of filmmaking. Given a schedule that allowed proper time to light and shoot, I'd like the opportunity to shoot film again, but only if film was the best option for that movie. If it caused budget problems and became a choice between great locations and production design or shooting film, I'd take the locations and design every day of the week.

That’s because shooting film these days is a prestige issue. I’d certainly like to shoot some 65mm one day, and having recently seen some bts stills shot with Kodak TMax on a movie I was doing, I’d love to do B&W too, but in general, I could care less about format. Most important thing is a good script, a good director, and having the time and budget to do it right.

I've used the Intel-a-jib with a Sony F55 and primes. We were doing simple moves, using a fluid head. It seemed to cope pretty well with the weight, but i have no idea if the added weight of a remote head would be a problem for it. As Phil says, Jimmy-Jibs are very useful, but a good operator is essential. Without one, I find a lot of Jimmy-Jib work ends up being done on a super wide lens, and just looks like nasty daytime television tv.

This still is from a video I shot a couple years ago for Maggie Lindemann. She was about 20 at the time, with flawless skin, and she had a great makeup artist The client still wanted a ton of beauty work done, and we ended up with this plastic doll effect.