Michael Nash

What is the "NAS Anamorphoser" ? Sorry, I haven't heard of it and couldn't find any info in the discussions here. Is it an anamorphic diopter made for the front of spherical lenses?

I'd say it was the overexposure that opened up your shadows, not the pull-processing. I mean, think about it: you gave the shadows THREE STOPS of extra light, and even after processing your shadows were still one stop ABOVE a normal exposure. How could that NOT look "opened up" ? ;) In what way do you think 100 speed film wouldn't hold up as well to 3 stops overexposure? The ASA has nothing to do with exposure latitude. But three stops is a bit much for any film stock, enough to introduce some of the artifacts you're looking for. You'd have to test to see what differences there are in grain, gamma, and detail in the shoulder. Regarding color, such extremes of exposure and processing produce slightly unpredicatble results, in that you never know EXACTLY how it's going to come out. The only way to find out is to do it. Different stocks behave differently when pushed and pulled. For instance, Fuji tends to color shift much more dramatically than Kodak with push or pull processing.

Well, if the natural light looks right to you then you're half way there. Try to get your widest shots while the available sunlight is in the right place, then try to recreate that light for the closeups (since the sun will eventually move). The sun is a very bright, hard source, so you'll need an instrument that can put out that quality of light. Fresnels are best for this, but you can also get a pretty crisp shadow from an open-faced light. You'll need something with a lot of wattage to emulate sunlight. You'll likely be using a tungsten-balanced light, so you'll need to either gel the light with blue to make it match the sunlight, or re-white balance your camera to the tungsten light (make sure there's no daylight spilling in when you do this).

Well, that's the nice thing about sunlight -- it's just as bright 1/2 a mile away as it is where you're standing (minus any cloud shadows). Hold out your light meter in the direction you're shooting (in the sunlight), expose and go. Works as long as the sun is at least half way around on your subject. You could also use a spot meter and make an educated guess as to how bright you want things to be. Green foliage when taken in mass is close to 18% gray. For really distant shots where there's a lot of atmospheric haze between you and your subject (on a long lens) you might close down the iris just a tad to keep things from looking too washed out. Or, you can go the opposite way and deliberately overexpose for more density on the neg, and adjust in timing or transfer. When I shoot helicopter shots on video here in LA (where there's often a lot of haze), I crush the blacks in the camera just a little to restore some "snap" to the image.

Don't forget bounce lighting also. Those halogen work lights can be bounced into a piece of foamcore or even a white wall. Then it's simply a matter of flagging the spill since the bounce is then the source. Put the whole thing on a dimmer to control the level, or put some ND or diffusion gel on the little safety cage in front of the light. Get the worklights with the really big cage; the gels will last a little longer. Make sure the dimmer can handle the amperage of light -- many tabletop dimmers are rated for 600W, so you should be fine.

I like Mitch's common-sense approach. Works for me most of the time! I'll tout again my poor man's answer to a color meter -- my inexpensive digital still camera. It tends to exaggerate differences in color temp, so anything that's off will become immediately apparent on the little LCD. You can do the same with a video camera, although the color sensitivity won't be exactly the same as film. 250D is actually fairly forgiving of differences in color temperature. But what kind of tungsten lights are you using outdoors? You're going to need some MAJOR firepower to compete with sunlight or even open shade light levels. Remember that full CTB sucks up 1-1/3 stop, and diffusion will kill even more. It's hard to light anything but closeups with tungsten lights outdoors.

The Spirit is a great machine, but you can get really good results from less expensive hardware. The hourly rate can really add up if you've got a lot of footage. I've gotten really nice results from Ursa Diamonds and the like, at much cheaper than the book rate for a Spirit. However, telecine is one more place where you don't want to skimp TOO much, as you don't want it to become the weak link in the image chain. I always supervise my transfers (as much as possible), as unsupervised can be like Russian roulette! Heck, even supervised transfers at the wrong facility can come up disappointing. It's true that Vision 320 is flatter and therefore reveals a little more grain than a similar speed stock like 250D, but not a HUGE amount more. If anything it shows up in the midtones, not blue spots in the shadows. I've shot plenty of 7279 which has coarser grain than 320, and had it come up squeaky clean in telecine. It sounds like it's worth taking the film in for a supervised transfer, just so you can verify what's on the film. The colorist will be able to tell you if your density was correct. Like others have suggested the telecine house may be able to let you thread up the film for free. But to me this is one of those scenarios where I'd just go ahead and pay for a retransfer and chalk up the expense as education, where you get to sit down with the colorist and really pick apart the film and the telecine technology. I figure I spend about 15 minutes of each transfer session just asking the colorist questions and trying new things!

And typically heavy gauge cords with the heavy-duty connections, 25 and 50' lengths. Ordinary hardware store orange extension cords aren't actually stingers, although crews just ask for a stinger when they need an extension cord!

Well, how do you think those people got there? I think you're dodging the point, Phil. We've been talking about ways to bridge that gap between low-end work and high-end work. The people producing high-end commercials in England surely weren't ALWAYS working at the high end. They all had to start somewhere, and it was probably at the professional equivalent of what you've been doing, only 20 years ago. Maybe it was interning at the BBC, maybe it was documentaries, maybe it was lower budget commercials or production in other countries. My point still stands that you sometimes have to take a small step back to move forward. Shoot low budget commercials for zero profit just to get them on your reel and build a reputation. Start working in the grip, electric, or camera departments on nonunion film jobs (I assume they exist in England, even if you have to go to London to find them). Invest the time, because you have to. Everyone who's doing high-end work already has. It's how you get there. We've established that the odds can stack up against you sometimes, and there's not always all that much you can do about it. But the other factor in the equation is your ATTITUDE. That's something that you CAN control, in fact you're the ONLY one who's in charge of it. If you take the attitude that you're stuck in a circle of doom or that effort is a moot point, then you've finished YOURSELF off. You've put your own brakes on your own advancement. Sure, it helps you avoid further disappointment and frustration -- by avoiding the risks necessary to succeed. It takes a proactive approach. It takes time. It takes risk, and more importantly the willingness to accept failure and difficulty as part of the process. It's never easy, you've just gotta be willing to do the work that it takes.

Just a useless side note -- I filmed in the basement of the defunct CFI film lab in Hollywood not too long ago, a great sci-fi/horror location filled with a gazillion tubes, tanks, ducts, pipes, valves, and decades of residual gunk. Great looking place. The buildings are now used only for film storage. On the steps down to the basement I found a smashed post-it note that says, "R6 Star Wars 121-109-117."

It's my understanding that common topline is more frequently used than common center, and that's how most Super 35 2.35:1 ground glasses are setup. Can anyone elaborate on this?

You might consider broadening your search area and have the unit shipped to your location, or else try to rent it locally. One less thing to have to try to ship yourself.

Those sound great! Many people may not know this, but Home Depot struck a deal within the last year to carry ONLY Philips light bulbs. If you want anything else from them, you're S.O.L. Try their competitors.

That all depends on your definition of "polished looking." Most DV cameras are capable of capturing an adequate exposure in a variety of light levels, so there's little problem there. The concern becomes making the light LOOK the way you want it to. For one thing, DV cameras can't handle highlights very well and practical sources tend to clip or burn out pretty quickly. So you usually end up wanting to supplement thew light giev off by practical, so that you can reduce the contrast enough for the camera to capture smooth image. But the major concern, whether it's DV or film, is shaping the light to look the way you want it to -- and KEEPING IT that way throughout the scene. You might have adequate light to shoot by, but it may be the wrong mood or tone for the scene, or it may not shape the character's face the right way. Lighting becomes about shaping and controlling the light, not just getting an image. You can certainly make do with hardware store lights and other homemade materials. Do a search of this site and you'll find lots of suggestions. Also you'll want to flag, color and scrim the light to make it behave the way you want. Try to wrangle up some c-stands or even ordinary light stands that you can clip flags onto. On a zero bugdget you can make flags out of cardboard, as long as you keep enough distance from the lights so they don't burn. Blackwrap is also good, as it's more heat resistant.

Well, since I obviously lost some of the particulars of your shoot, maybe you can refresh my memory. ;) Why do you want to shoot with 200 ASA film outdoors if your target f-stop is a 5.6? Are you planning on also shooting in deep shade or in overcast weather? Also, is this project for telecine or print? (Sorry to ask questions that you've probably already gone over). The only thing that strikes me about all this is that I think you're worrying too much about getting a proper exposure for the snow. Simply expose for the incident light, and let the snow do what it does. If you're really worried about the snow clipping in bright sunlight, take a spot reading and see that it's not more than about 4 stops above your exposure. The odd spectral reflection will make the snow appear to glisten a little anyway, as long as it's not burning out completely. If you end up shooting in shade or backlit with sunlit snow in the background, then try to add more fill light to get your expsoure up closer to the reflected highlights. It sounds more like you should shoot some tests to find the latitude and dynamic range of the film you're planning to use. Bright sunlight typically calls for a slow ASA stock and ND filters. If you use film stock that's too fast, you end up using such a heavy amount of ND on the lens that you can't see through the viewfinder very well. And as someone pointed out recently, that becomes uncomfortable to switch between normal viewing and operating. Some cameras can take behind-the-lens filtration for this purpose, but not all. Remember the "sunny 16" rule -- A normal exposure for sunlight is: film speed over shutter speed = f16. In other words 50 ASA and 1/50 shutterspeed gives you an f16. You can calculate different film speeds and shutter speeds from that. Naturally, as you expose more for shadow or in overcast light the f-stop will drop below a 16. All I'm saying is that you can predict which filters and film speed you'll need for bright sunlight as it's always the same, then have a plan for being able to get more exposure as you lose light or alter you filters, frame rates, and so on.

I was in the Tampa Bay area (St. Petersburg). Born and raised there. I worked primarily in the corporate video world, some film jobs ocassionally, '89-'98.

I'd bet that Geoff Boyle and Towny Brown would disagree! :P I don't doubt that production opportunities in England are vastly different than they are in LA. And I don't know the realities of the industry there. But doesn't England have a robust commercial industry? I know they've consistently turn out some pretty good product, and the DP's I've mentioned have surely paid their dues and gotten better to enjoy that kind of work. Besides, it's not just your skill level or talent that gets you ahead in your career -- that's the premise that started this thread. Equally important are your industry contacts, your resume, and plain-old business savvy. I doubt you've given up on improving those aspects of your profession. So even if quality doesn't matter in your market (which I still doubt), that still doesn't mean you have no opportunites for advancement. Sometimes part of the challenge is just figuring out the game and how to play it.

I did something similar once, with a boy blowing out the candles on a birthday cake (in a dark room). I hid an ordinary 100W light bulb behind the cake, and got something like an f4 on the boy's face with 500 ASA film. The trick with candlelight is to try to supplement the light of the candles from as close to the same direction as the candle source as possible -- just don't let your lights cast a shadow of the candle onto your subject! In closeup shots it's pretty easy, as you can sneak a small instrument in pretty close. In wider shots, you'll have to get farther away with your lights and use barndoors and/or blackwarp to focus the light on just your subject. Part of the low-key, intimate ambience you get from candles is that the light falls off pretty quickly, so you don't want your supplemental light source blasting the back wall behind your subject. Small fresnels like Peppers and Inkies are great for this, but with 100 ASA film you might step up to a 650W Tweenie. In B&W you could even go hard with the light, but in color usually a little diffusion on the doors helps sell the "soft" candle light effect. It's a bit of a bend from reality actually, since candles are rather small, hard sources. It's just that your eye doesn't focus as well at such low light levels, so it ends up LOOKING soft. At 100 ASA you'll probably also want to add some fill light to mimic the low-level ambience your eye sees in candle light. You could use a china ball or bounce a small light into the ceiling above the candle position. Try to expose the fill from this light well below your key, maybe minus 2 stops or even more. The light level is still going to look way too bright to your eye, but you'll have to trust your meter and your judgement. I wouldn't suggest getting too carried away with the flicker either. Usually a little goes a long way, and you can do it only every once in awhile to preserve the illusion of the candle source.

It's common to use various photofloods; 211's (75W), 212's (150W), and 213's (250W). Usually you'll put the whole rig on a "hand squeezer" (600W household dimmer) so it really doesn't matter what wattage bulb you put in. But if you start with the brightest bulb and have to dim it too much the color temp may start to change. As David points out this isn't always a bad thing, but if you're using it for fill light you may want the color to match the key a little better. 211's and 212's are rated for 100 hrs, and 213's only 3 hrs. BCA's (close to daylight balanced) don't last long either, and their color goes pretty quickly. A BCA won't last a full day in a practical without going warm. For brands, I don't usually worry about it. The bulbs tend to blow or get broken before their color changes anyway!

In general zoom lenses will give more flares, in that there are more elements to give distinct spots or flares. But primes can flare also. Another thing to consider is the filter reflection. You might want to consider a matte box with an angled filter stage so you don't get too much light bouncing between the front element and the back of the filter.

Yeah -- what 200 ASA stock are you exposing in sunlight with an 81EF filter, but no 85? If I recall from your posts, you've been trying to warm up the image beyond a normal balance. The only 200 ASA stocks I know of are tungsten balanced, so you'd need an 85 filter PLUS whatever warming filter you want. With only an 81EF you'd end up with an image that's bluer than normal. Also, 1/3 stop compensation from 200 would be 160, not 120 (125). 120 would be 2/3 compensation.

On a modest budget it's usually best to find a way to work with what's there, rather than fight it. In this case, use the existing fluorescents as a base and add fill or shape with either Kino's of the same color, or gel tungsten or HMI lights to match. Often it's a combination of both, as you've got to work with what you have. A common problem is that adjacent rooms don't always have the same color temp. though. For example, the waiting room might have daylight coming in through windows, the desk area may have warm-white tubes, and the hallway has cool whites. In that situation you need to decide whether you can adequately frame out the other color temps, or if you're going to take the time and expense to color-match all the tubes and gel the windows. I'm not sure about the low-con filters, though. Usually overhead fluorescents produce such a flat quality of light that you try to build UP your contrast through lighting. The only time that fails is if the overheads are oddly spaced and you end up with actors walking in and out of hot spots and shadow. And even in that case you'd be more likely to compensate with fill light rather than low-con filters. I've used Ultra-cons in fluorescent-lit environments too make them seem even more flat and ugly, but not because the ambience photographed too contrasty.

I doubt it was the auto-knee. The knee function compresses color information down into a recordable range of luminance. But the brightness of the sun would far exceed the ability of the knee. I would think the purple hue is more likely an artifact of the chip being overloaded. Sustained bright areas can also cause a burn-in on the phosphors on your monitor. I've seen bright skies start to turn green if left on the screen too long (regular consumer CRT TV's). The green spot lingers for a few minutes until the phosphors are sufficinently refreshed with other footage or by turning the set off.

I forgot to mention that you don't need a projector to view slides, although projectors can be picked up cheap. You can simply hold a slide up to the light and view it by eye, but it's common to set the slides on a light table (essentially a white plastic box with a bulb inside), and view the slide closeup through a "loupe," or small magnifying glass that looks like a shot glass turned upside down.

Oh boy, now I feel OLD... :( Yeesh, I thought slides were common enough that... oh, forget it. Way back in the day when I was riding my dinosaur off to school, people used to project their vaction photos and classroom lessons onto a screen in a dark room, like a movie but only one frame at a time. Each frame from the roll of film was cut and mounted in a little cardboard frame, and these frames were put into a carousel on top of a projector. With the push of a button the carousel would advance and the frame of film would "slide" into position in front of the bulb and be projected through the lens. "Next." And if you think this technology is antequated, slide film is still the preferred medium for anything that goes to print (like magazines), although often in a format larger than 35mm. No offense intended, but every now and then I get surprised by what's considered "normal" or unheard of by the next generation. :D