Michael Nash

Is that Alfie on the far left? I haven't seen him in a couple years...

The sitcoms mentioned were likely shot with studio cameras (not Betacam field cameras) of the day, and probably recorded on 1" video tape. Some of the cameras may have even still been tube cameras at that point, which had a distinctly "warmer" look than CCD cameras. Of course lighting on those sets for multi-camera also contributes to the look. Fairly high-key, kind of flat, and often with harder sources than you might expect today. But as with any "vintage" look, you have to be clear about what you're looking at and comparing it to. For example, many syndicated reruns of old shows are often dubbed down to a lower quality tape format than the original air format. When I was in college in the late '80's, I worked in a TV station that was showing syndicated programs from 3/4" tapes! You have to decide which aspects of the "look" you want to emulate and go from there. You might have better luck shooting with modern equipment and manipualting it in post for that vintage look, rather than finding old equipment that's still in good working order. One way those old tube cameras were different from CCD cameras was that the tubes had to be registered periodically, to get the colors to line up (CCD's and prisms are all physically glued together these days). When the tubes were out of registration, you'd end up with subtle color fringing around edges of objects. Tubes also had a "softer" look to the resolution, somewhat steep gamma, and an overall warm color bias.

Just came out on DVD. Unfortunately I missed it in the theater, so I didn't get to see how a filmout of Varicam footage looks. There's precious little widescreen Varicam material on DVD, so here's a chance to see how it looks in a feature context. TV shows like "Arrested Development" and "Oliver Beene" are presented in 4:3, so a little resolution is lost compared to a 16:9 letterbox. IMO, overall it looks pretty good. Not too "video-ish," but not exactly like film. Speaking purely of resolution, it looks markedly better than "28 days later" (SD PAL MiniDV), but not as clean as "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" (Sony 24P HDCAM). Roughly comparable in sharpness, although a tad softer, than Super16 features on DVD like "Monsoon Wedding" and "Thirteen." Given the specs of those formats, it stands to reason. For DVD release, well-done Super 16 has a slight edge over the Varicam, I'd say. But it really comes down to technical details like lenses, transfers (telecines and filmouts) and camera setups and exposure. Either format done badly would lose to the other format done well. Unfortunately the color correction and compression of the DVD introduced a lot of artifacts. The bulk of the movie is color-corrected for a bluish and desaturated look, with the ending more rich and normal in color balance. The ending seemed to suffer much less from artifacts. Skin tones seemed to get a little pasty if overexposed, like the color info was there even though fine detail was lost. Color correction may have removed some of the info that might have otherwise "completed" the picture, though. The AlphaCine Lab logo was all over the DVD, so I don't know if the DVD is a transfer of a film intermediate, or a straight digital transfer from the color-corrected master. I'd be curious to know. The deleted scenes seem to be uncorrected, and look more video-ish than the rest of the film (although still pretty good). The movie overall is decent and worth viewing, although it feels a lot like the first-time independent feature that it is. The slow pacing of scenes, the overuse of masters, and the reluctance to back off and go on a longer lens for close-ups. The lighting could have been a bit more adventurous (too much soft, flat lighting for the story IMHO), although the DP obviously had the skill to light it well. Some of the few impressionistic soft-focus shots were downright pretty. They also made good use of the camera's ability to undercrank, for a few expressionistic illustrations of coffee and amphetimine fueled all-nighters and time-lapse transitions.

A bit late catching up, but I couldn't let this occasion slip by... Congratulations, David! If anyone deserves it, you do. Your knowledge, talent and spirit are what the ASC is all about.

If you want a lo-fi feel, why not just shoot DV instead of film? It's a whole lot easier and less expensive to shoot MiniDV and firewire that into your computer. But if you specifically want a film look, shoot 16 or super8 and send that off for a "one light" telecine transfer to MiniDV. You'll probably find more labs able to handle 16 quickly and cheaply than you will with super8. You can probably pick up a cheap Filmo or K3 springwound camera that would suit your purposes.

A typical ENG video kit usually includes 4-6 small tungsten lights, usually 500W-1K's. These might include Lowel Omni's (650W open-faced), D or DP's (1K open face), Totas (750W-1K nook lights), and possibly small fresnels like LTM Peppers (100-400W). You'll typically want two soft sources of some kind for key and fill; possibly speed rings and Chimeras for the Totas or DP's. Lowel makes silver umbrellas that attach to most of their lights, and also collapsible softlights that take two bulbs, usually set up with a 750 and 1K side. This all fits inside a couple hard plastic suitcases. You'll also need some basic grip gear including at LEAST 3-4 C-stands, sand bags, and various flags, nets, and silks. Gels, grip clips, scissor clips, extension cords and so on... But again... If you're just starting out with this stuff you're much better off renting. You don't know what you really need or how to use it effectively for your purposes until you try it. Rent the gear or hire a gaffer and equipment to shoot your infomercial. You'll learn more, your employer will get a better project, you'll establish yourself in the video market, and everybody will be happy. Compare that to spending money and learning by trial and error on your employer's professional message. :(

Mitch is absolutely right, don't even think about trying squibs yourself. In fact, you can't even purchase squibs without a license. You might be able to fake a blood spurt with some tubing and compressed air. It'll take some experimenting to get the size of the tube, the "wadding" and air pressure to all work right, but it can be done. Think about stepping on a ketchup packet, that's the basic idea. The other thing to consider is how to shoot it so that the blood shows up on camera. Basically you want to either frame dark or red blood against a light background (a light colored shirt works best with blood), or backlight flying blood against a dark background, especially if the shot is more profile.

Color saturation is something you would have to test for the results you want to achieve. If overall desaturation is your aim, then desaturate everything (see David's Mullen's Northfork , and my accompanying article http://cinematography.com/articles/northfork/ ;) If you want some colors to stand out, leave them saturated. For example, it's common to make fake blood extra saturated so that it still appears red after bleach bypass, but "how much" looks right is up to you. You'll want to find a balance between skin tones and wardrobe/production design. Test. For your beach scene you might be better off shooting clean, since it's likely to be high-contrast lighting already (assuming it's sunny). Since you're posting electronically, this should give you the most amount of control.

A quick google search turned up this article: http://www.surfline.com/community/whoknows/video.cfm

Just to bring this back to the subject of viability, Super16 is also ideally suited for video release, including HD (The 1.66 Super16 frame fits 16x9 very well). I too have noticed a resurgence of S16 production, and you can see a bit of it on television right now. The OC, Scrubs, Gilmore Girls, Malcolm in the Middle. It looks like "Wonderfalls" and "Tru Calling" may be shot on 16 as well, but that's just judging by the look. The last two straight-to-video projects I gaffed were shot Super16 and transferred on a Spirit to HD. The SD downconversion looked very slick.

I also work with a company that owns several D-30's and on the whole their numbers come up pretty close. That's why I tend to think it comes down to the particular camera (its age and maintenance), not the model. That said, I don't even bother with what the number tells me. I trust my own expeience and judgement more than what a possibly inaccurate number tells me. If in doubt, just white balance and use a monitor! ;)

Thanks, that's what I thought. So how about "Dino's" and "Jumbo's"?

It's always a tossup whether to shoot process or poor-man's-process. There are strong advantages and disadvantages to both. Is it easier to rig all your lights, power, and camera support on a trailer and cart it down the street, or is it easier to try to replicate all the nuance of moving lights, vehicle and background in a studio? Poor-man's-process isn't always easier or better; sometimes it's just the best choice for the project. As Bob and Phil pointed out, big-budget movies do it all the time. Big budget movies also go to elaborate extremes for process shots, like running an actual dolly around an ambulance while traveling through the streets of New York in "Bringing Out The Dead." It's a choice dependent on a lot of variables, including budget. There's a really good commentary about poor-man's-process on the behind-the-scenes section of the DVD of "Frailty." Much of the movie takes place as a night driving sequence in the rain, and the filmmakers felt shooting on a stage gave them the most control. They were able to manipulate the subtleties of shadows across faces, rain on the windows, and even the tempo of the windshield wipers to accent the dramatic moments. Check it out, it's educational. David Fincher's "The Game" also created elaborate moving light rigs and rear projection for poor-man's-process, and the effect is completely seamless. Not that it was easy or cheap to pull off! The last thing you want is for your dramatic film to look like a taxi ride in "Seinfeld." :P

It depends on the particular camera. Personally I don't pay attention to the number unless I've tested the camera. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! ;) I've been shooting on a reality show lately with 2-3 Betacam cameras setup ENG style. ( http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/betteror...terorworse.html ). Mostly 600's and an old 400, from different rental houses. None of the cameras agree on color temp, or white balance for that matter. Since we're never set up with a switcher and CCU's there's little chance to "grade" the cameras, and we spend a bit of time trying to get then to match.

All good suggestions, a couple more tips: Kino's come in 9" and 15" car kits, which can be powered off the cigarette lighter or hardwired to the car battery. They're dimmable and you can choose whatever color temp, you like. Even if you don't care for the dashboard-lit look, you can knock'em down with diffusion and still use them as fill. A 200W light on the hood a punched through some diffusion can give a natural-looking ambience coming through the windshield. Try to place it at a side angle to make it look more like streetlight ambience, not so much a full-on keylight. You can do the same thing through the back window (for the hostess tray shots). Another low-budget technique is to have a follow vehicle drive behind with its high-beams on. The back- and edge-light helps lift the actors' heads out of the dark. It takes a little practice to find a natural looking distance, but it helps. Switch back to regular beams for the hood mount shots, and position the follow vehicle farther back. The bright spot of the headlights lights looks cool and gives great depth when out of focus. With a car on a trailer that means you'll have TWO batteries to work with, if you don't mind leaving the engine running on your picture car (the battery will go flat if you try to run lights off it otherwise).

Just be careful that your mixed color temperatures don't end up looking like a mistake, or sloppy production. Very easy to do with mis-matched color temps. Whenever I mix color temperatures I try to motivate the colors from practical sources as much as possible. It's an easier leap for the viewer to think that an orange or green glow is coming from a nearby lamp, and not just due to sloppy or bad production. In an office interior that practical lighting might mean soft overhead ceiling lights, and maybe desklamps. Perhaps an ugly toplight on your liar character might put him in a "bad light," so to speak, instead of just warm fill opposite the window. The color-correct sidelight and yelowish toplight could be interesting together. There was a scene in "Hannibal" that John Mathieson talked about in American Cinematographer where they did something similar. Hannibal is playing a delicate passage on a piano while lit by two different types of light, subtly suggesting the different aspects of his personality.

Those tools are great, but in my experience they are of limited use. You can predict sun angles all you want to, but that doesn't do you much good when there are a dozen variables that you CAN'T predict -- the weather, differences in blocking choices made by the actors or director, wardrobe changes, and other little logistical snafu's. That's when you have to just be prepared for anything and pull out every trick in the book, like David says. I'm not suggesting Sunpath et. al. is worthless, just that it's a very secific tool with a very specific use. Most often you make an educated best-guess, and implement "plan B" anyway. ;)

It is very much a people-oriented industry, but that just means that at some point YOU have to offer something to others -- in terms of knowledge and ability. If you're just graduating high school, chances are you still have a lot to learn. Don't shortchange yourself the education for the sake of making contacts. Film school is a good place to learn, but you can also self-educate yourself to great degree. The most important thing is to put yourself in an environement where you're surrounded (and supported) by people and resources that help you practice and learn. That could mean film school, a film camp, a club or organization, or simply finding entry-level work in the industry. I guess what I'm saying is you need the education (both academic and hands-on) AND the contacts. Be prepared to spend years developing your knowledge, skill, and connections.

I often get confused about the names since everyone calls them something different -- some people will say "9-light" while others say "maxi-brute." :huh: If I'm not mistaken, a Wendy is a type of multi-globed par fixture, like the ones at the bottom of ther page here: http://extranet.mole.com/public/index.cgi?...05-1915&id=1927 Anyone care to run down the various par/fay lamps by name and number of globes?

Tony, I always feel good after looking at images on your site. Nice stuff! I've gotten similar moonlight results from a 6K HMI fresnel about 30' up (on top of a building), at a distance of maybe 60' from the light to the center of the lit area. F-stop was around a 4 on 500 ASA, and I think that may have included a scrim in the light. Getting enough stop wasn't the problem; it's getting a large enough pool of light from the height you can realistically achieve. Without a handy rooftop you can easily put a 6K or larger in a condor -- I think the largest is 80'. Naturally you can get a softer look and a larger spread with diffusion in from of the light instead of going "hard," although it cuts the stop. You really have to work out the distances you're planning to work with. Don't forget about lighting the background as well, usually from a separate source.

Phil's right that it could be an optical illusion. But it could also be from different colored light sources. Whenever I encounter something like this it's a great opportunity to observe and discover the way light behaves. I would have looked up and tried to account for where the light was coming from. I'm not sure if by "roof lights" you mean skylights or simply lights attached to the ceiling, but the color of the lights may have been different. If not, then some other light may have been contaminating the scene. Or, it may have been an optical illusion.

So what lenses did you use with the NAS anamorphoser?

Just to be clear, "over-under" coiling is not the same thing as wrapping a cable around your hand and elbow (if that's what you mean by over-the-arm). Over-under is a little hard to describe in words, but it's kind of like a half twist or roll of the cable with every other loop.

Where'd you get that idea? :P I wouldn't agree with that at all. Exposure is exposure. It's only the content of the frame that might make the scene feel brighter or darker between wide or tight shots. Consider an alternate example: A night exterior with pools of light at key level, and lots of deep shadows and night sky (wide shot). Now cut to a closeup of someone standing in one of those pools of light, exposed at key level (same as the wide shot). Which shot will feel brighter? The wide frame full of shadow and black sky, or the closeup frame full of properly exposed skin tone? It's only the amount of bright or dark subject in the frame that makes shots feel brighter or darker with the same exposure. So if your wide shots have lots of snow, it would naturally feel brighter overall than a closeup of skin tones at the same exposure. In that case you could justify closing down a little to maintain a more consistent luminence between shots. But don't think in terms of wide or tight -- think of the "real estate" in your frame. If it's MOSTLY snow, then expose more for the snow. If it's mostly face, expose for the face. Where wide shots differ from closeups is the amount of DETAIL they reveal. For that reason it's not uncommon to use a lighter grade of lens diffusion on wide shots, and go heavier for closeups.

Okay, so I Googled "NAS anamorphoser" and found your previous posts on this forum. The site's own search engine turned up nothing. Hmm.... So I take it the NAS lenses are lenses modified to anamorphic, not just a diopter. I guess those lenses haven't made their way to the US yet, although maybe other European productions have used them. I'm always curious to hear about new anamorphics, since there are relatively few of them.