Michael Nash

"Doomed. DOOMED!" (like the FedEx commercial) :P It doesn't have to be a circle of doom. You of all people should know how quickly technology changes, and how much high-end work is filtering down to desktop level as the technology improves. Circumstances change quickly, meaning there really is no circle. And besides, if you want to get to the next professional level you sometimes have to take a small step back in order to make the transition. So you can't jump right in as an Inferno or Avid operator. Yet you need that experience to move forward in your career. So you worm your way into an apprentice or assistant situation where you can get your hands on the gear. Invest the time, impress you employers with your intellect and ability, and before too long you're working at the next level on the latest gear. Repeat the process as necessary throughout your career. I went through the same thing with cinematography in the small Florida market where I started. There was a small amount of high-end commercial production going on, but the 3 local film DP's had the ad agencies sewn up (and anything bigger than local, the agencies had the national/international cinematography pool to choose from). So rather than wait for someone to retire just so that an opportunity would open up, I decide to move to where there were more opportunities. Part of the equation here is where your heart leads you. It's hard to sustain enough passion to really excel at something you're not interested in, yet you can't NOT pursue something that really stimulates you. I used to be a director/cameraman/editor, but started to get burned out. Through it all I couldn't get enough of the cinematography aspect, and realized I had to focus on the one thing that interested me and let the rest go. But it wasn't an easy decision or transition. You have to continue to make money, you have to figure some form of strategy and plan for your career, all without the benefit of a crystal ball. But there comes a point where your passion becomes apparent and your path becomes clear. Don't discount the value of this of soul-searching process, because the convictions you come up with are what will keep you motivated and on track. Like the Joe Jackson song says, "You can't get what you want, 'til you know what you want."

This topic seems to come up time and time and time again. The answer is always the same. I wonder if we could make up a little laminated chart like the one for HMI safe speeds that says "A 50MM LENS IS A 50MM LENS. THE FOCAL LENGTH REMAINS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF FILM FORMAT -- ONLY THE HORIZONTAL ANGLE OF VIEW CHANGES WITH DIFFERENT FILM FORMATS. DEPTH OF FIELD REMAINS THE SAME, BUT SHOULD BE CALCULATED BY THE C.O.C. OF THE FILM FORMAT." I don't mean to sound insulting to the students who ask this question as it is a little confusing at first, and you have to start somewhere. But sometimes it gets out of hand, and students will INSIST that it's somehow the other way around. A very intelligent friend of mine who's a cinematography student at USC went through this very argument with me. He even called Clairmont to get a "technical" answer, only to end up more confused (and adamant) than ever. Frustrating. David, are you still editing the "Cinematography" book? This seems like a topic deserving of a once-and-for-all explanation for cinematography students.

Pretty much ANY camera house in LA should have this. Very common. Make sure you test it with the camera configuration you're using. The balance changes considerably with differnt lenses, matte boxes, batteries (onboard or belt). Even the direction you're shooting (pointed up or down compared to level) changes the position you'll want the support and handles.

What have you got against shooting film? Or are you considering running expensive film through the camera on a real production without having tested it? Even well-maintained equipment from rental houses gets tested with film before being put into use on a production. Have the camera serviced, and shoot a test roll of film. 100' of 16mm reversal is not that expensive to shoot, develop, and project. Far less than several hundred feet of wasted film and lost once-in-a-lifetime footage.

It sounds like the kind of thing you'll have to spend some time tinkering with. The final product can probably be build pretty cheap, but the trial-and-error period will cost you some time and expense. I'd say go for it, but don't expect it to be perfect right away.

For a recent production we needed just the shot you described, only from a lower angle. Short of money and time (no bumper-mount on hand, and a heavy Betacam camera), we decided to shoot out the back of a minivan driving forward, and reverse the motion in the Avid. Our shot was daytime so no need to create headlights, and it was a plain neighborhood street so there were no pedestrians or traffic moving backwards to give away the technique.

OOPS! Sorry, I just re-read the posts and realized you're talking about external hard drives and not the XDCAM optical drive. That's what I get for skimming the thread and not actually reading it... :P But I guess it still shows that Sony did something useful (and business savvy) in making a reliable "intermediate" drive system -- a proprietary one that performs well in the field, but is still compatible with common computers.

The one thing conspicuously missing from all the Sony advertising is specs for the actual CAMERA, including chipset, pixel count, etc. It's as though the market they're aiming for (news) doesn't really care about highest-end production quality, just a "good enough" standard. From what I saw on the Sony website, I suspect the camera is built upon the same platform as the DSR-500 2/3" chip camera, which produces a very good looking image but by specs is not up to the performance of a broadcast camera. I don't know, I could be wrong. It seems positioned squarely for news and not for production. Regarding the cost of drives, remember that Sony is primarily interested in getting their gear into the market. If they made their gear TOO compatible with third-party equipment, you wouldn't have to purchase the Sony product. If they made their system too proprietary and closed-ended (as they've done before), then you might not invest in their whole workflow system. But if they make a system that becomes compatible with the rest of the technology world -- as long as you buy ONE expensive piece of Sony gear -- then they've got their hooks in you. You either cough up for the product or miss the boat completely. It's just good business sense on their part (at least in theory). The thing they keep pushing in all their advertising for this system is how shockproof and reliable the drive system is. They couldn't make that claim with any reliability about third-party drives. I'm not suggesting that other drives couldn't also be reliable, but if Sony put in the R&D to deliver a reliable system then they can justify charging a premium for it.

(And I do appreciate the humor of Mr. Belics' response) :P I can sympathize with this, although there's another contributing factor: the market you're working in. When you're in a small market with little production work going on, you HAVE to be a jack of all trades. There's no one there to hire you as a specialist. You have to be able to "turnkey" projects for less than they're really worth (and less than you're worth) just to survive. The demand is simply too low for anything else. When you're in a large market like Los Angeles or New York, it's the opposite. The demand for product is so high and the competition from other producers so high that you have to turn out high quality product -- forcing you to hire specialists. In general, the jacks-of-all trades in large markets end up doing lower budget work, since the customers who want that type of service are the ones who can't afford high-end production. There does come a point where you need to pick a "core competency" and focus on that, even while continuing that multi-service approach. Practice and bolster that discipline (shooting or editing, for example) until you're good enough to offer your services as a specialist in a market where there's adequate demand. You can use your skills in other areas as a "value added" service to your core service. For example, it's not uncommon for DP's to also be Steadicam operators, giving them a unique edge over the competition for the right project. Or a DP with telecine color-correction experience. Director-DP's are especially valuable in the commercial world, and for second-unit work in features. A good friend of mine from my home town in Florida is a perfect example. He's been a producer, director, shooter, and editor in a small market for maybe 20 years. He's made a decent living and pleased countless clients with his ability to marshal all the elements needed to hand over a finished Digibeta master. Now that his kid has graduated high school and is onto college with a full scholarship, he's ready to make the jump to LA. I've been trying to impress upon him this very concept, that Hollywood doesn't want versatility, they want experts. Through the years his real strong suit has always been post, and out here he's probably going to clean up as an Avid editor and/or post supervisor.

"Film Lighting," Kris Malkiewicz http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...1679257-3371839 Lots of other good books, too. There used to be a books/library section on this site. Is it gone, or am I just not looking in the right place?

Just a thought here, but if you really want the orange blouse to pop or stand out from the snow and deep background, maybe you DON'T want to filter out too much UV. A little bluish color to the snow will provide some color contrast against the orange. You can dial out some of the blue in telecine, and it's doubtful that UV would contaminate an orange blouse closeup anyway. But for wider shots with distant background you might want a little bit of UV cancelling.

You can have the room be dark but put light at the proper level on just the actors. The amount of darkness surrounding the actors will make the scene feel dark. That's a little bit of a simplification, but it illustrates the relationship between exposure and darkness. Said another way: don't try to create darkness by EXPOSING darker; instead expsose normally and start taking light off of the wall and other subjects until the scene LOOKS dark. Once you've got a handle on this you can start to fine-tune the effect by adjusting the exposure a little, and changing the angle of the light.

That's a HEAVY camera to put on a body mount -- very uncomfortable for the actor. If I'm not mistaken, usually these types of shots are done with a much smaller camera like a Bolex or similar for 16mm, an Eyemo for 35mm. The idea is that the shot doesn't need to last very long and can be shot MOS, so small cameras with short loads are fine.

You're basically talking about a black curtain and a soft sidelight. You can use almost any kind of light, either pushed through a silk or a frame of diffusion. You can also bounce light off something white like a piece of foamcore or beadboard. The larger the surface of the diffusion or bounce, the softer the source becomes. Put it to the side or slightly behind you dancers to give them more of an edge light. If you edge them from both sides but add no front light you can have a semi-silhouette, revealing their figures and movements without revealing details about their faces or wardrobe. If you have access to a studio at your school you can hang lights from the grid, instead of putting them on stands. Make sure you flag the soft light (in front of the disffusion source) to keep it from spilling onto your black curtain. Lastly (and again) -- don't buy your lights. Rent them. Or borrow them from your school.

Yeah, it's a weird business. You do have to be proactive, but that only accounts for a small percentage of the work (but you still have to do it). Lucky breaks account for a certain portion, flukes make up a small portion. Quality work and dedicated service earn a small portion. In other words, it's all the little things that add up and get you work. You have to work EVERY angle you can, all the time. But three years is still kind of on the entry curve for this business. Stick with it and allow yourself some time to let your connections, reputation, and skill grow. It's like planting seeds; you won't see a benefit for a long time, but when you do it will all be based on the work you do now. Reagrding being proactive, solicit as many jobs as you can with whatever means are appropriate for the job (resume, reel, a simple reminder of the job you did with the client previously). Be forthright in saying that you're looking for work, and that you'd like to be considered for their next project. Probably the most important factor is your people connections (since that's where all the jobs come from!). Brush up on your networking skills and again be patient while planting those seeds.

It depends on the type of helicopter and the type of shots you want. Usually the simplest approach is best. Since it's low budget, a Tyler mount or Wescam rig is probably out of the question (unless the helicopter already happens to have a remote camera mount). Believe it or not, you can get decent results with plain-old handheld operating from a helicopter, as long as you're on a wide lens and the camera has sufficient mass. Once you try to zoom in things will start to get shaky, no matter how well you grip the camera. With balanced cameras like Betacam you can brace the camera on your shoulder or lap and still retain adequate control. With the XL-1 you may want to add some kind of baseplate or handles to give you more leverage over the camera. I once rigged a bungee mount in a small Huey helicopter to take the weight of the camera, with reasonable results. It's also helpful to have a remote monitor so you don't have to keep your eye to the eyepiece. A small LCD screen comes in handy for this, but I've also used 8" field monitors and removed the viewfinder from the body of the Betacam camera so I could position it more conveniently. The biggest challenge is trying to keep the horizon level. The aircraft will subtly roll without you realizing it, so program your brain to watch your level while framing. Usually you're shooting out the open side door of the helicopter, which raises two concerns -- safety, and exposure to the elements. First and most important is safety. You and all your gear need to be securely fastened down to the aircraft. Safety cable or harness everything. Even a loose battery on the floor can become a deadly bomb to someone on the ground. Remember, the aircraft tips sideways and you've got an open door, several hundred feet up. If it's cold where you're shooting (and it sounds like it is) then the open door approach presents some problems. What can I say, but bundle up! Shooting through the glass of a helicopter usually shows distortion, dirt and scratches (like a dirty car windshield). Consider wrapping the camera in heat packs if you're worried about the equipment freezing. Talk to your pilot ahead of time about your ideas and how he/she might accommodate them. He will know the practicality of certain maneuvers and altitudes, and he's the boss when you're in the air, so listen to him. There are really only so many types of shots you're going to be able to get out the side of a helicopter. For example, the straight-on dolly forward shot requires the pilot to take the craft out of trim and fly diagonally, which requires a little more skill. He will also be able to tell you how you can mount gear to the helicopter itself. Lastly, for goodness sakes, NEVER approach a helicopter from the rear. The tail rotor will kill you before you even know what happened. Better yet, go over all the safety issues with the pilot or aerial coordinator before even getting near the aircraft. I don't mean to sound reactionary, but the safety issues around helicopters are not to be taken lightly. Beyond that, they're a blast, and you can get some great shots!

It's worth pointing out that the viewfinder can't make something appear IN focus when it's actually out of focus. The viewfinder can only focus on the ground glass; it can't "re-focus" an image that's out of focus on the ground glass. In other words, if the image appears sharp in the viewfinder but doesn't match the scale on the lens, it can't be the viewfinder that's set wrong.

It sounds like the music video may have simply been shot undercranked, at perhaps 12fps. With the right movement from the actors, it can produce an unnerving effect. If the actors slow their movement to half speed, events take place in real time but motion appears more abrupt and odd. The shot could have been in conjunction with a narrow shutter angle, but usually undercranked footage lookes pretty "jittery" to begin with. Putting the shutter out of phase with the film movement makes highlights streak vertically (as also seen in "Saving Private Ryan"), but it doesn't affect motion otherwise. The Mesmeriser lens is simply an anamorphic lens diopter that mounts to the front of a standard lens. It stretches the image in whatever direction the diopter is oriented. It also has a motor that attaches to a Microforce controller so you can make it re-orient or spin at any rate during the shot. Most often you see the element rotated very slowly to produce a warping effect that suggests being drugged, for instance.

Great discussion, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned the obvious -- surf shooting has been a niche market for years. Why not try to find some used gear from other professional surf shooters? Seems they would have worked out all these technical logistics (regarding 16mm) long ago... You don't have to try to re-invent the wheel. ;)

I watched the restored version on DVD not too long ago. The restoration looks and sounds great. One thing that struck me was the amount of banded cable in the frame throughout the movie. I can understand it in such a large and complex shot as the opener, but there were other scenes with cable plainly visible as well. I guess they felt it was a little more subtle in B&W. The other thing that struck me was the OTHER really long continuous-take shot in the middle of the movie, that no one ever talks about. It's an apartment interior with lots of characters and lots of dialogue, constantly moving and revealing new information. The carefully choreographed blocking and camera movement to pull that scene off in a small space seems almost as remarkable as the big exterior opening shot.

I'm not sure if that was a joke, but this is all worth a chuckle. :D I think that was a misspelling of "career." But this is all getting SERIOUSLY off-topic (and I'm contributing, so I'll shut up). Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. :)

I've only thumbed through the AC Video manual, but I could say it certainly wouldn't hurt to own it. You'll probably find that it's mostly technical about video imaging, and won't tech you much about cinematography per se. More accessible and helpful information might be found in some of the various video books from Focal Press. There's one in particular called something like "Basic Betacam and Digital Video Camerawork." http://books.elsevier.com/us//focalbooks/u...nity=focalbooks Start with some of the basics, and don't limit your education just to video simply because that's the camera you have access to right now. Don't know about UK magazine subscriptions, since I'm in the US. You can read some material from American Cinematographer online, though. http://theasc.com/magazine/index.htm There's no real difference between "cinematographer" and "DP." A cinematographer is someone who practices motion picture photography. "DP," or Director of Photography, describes the position a cinematographer holds on a film crew. One word describes the action, the other term describes the crew postion.

This overlooks the obvious -- the others cited here have all been recognized and become successful as filmmakers. Mr. Diesel was recognized and has enjoyed success for his acting, not his filmmaking talent.

Another thought: Check out stock footage companies. The perfect shot may already exist. I love the straight-down night shots they use in the TV show "Without A Trace." http://www.cbs.com/primetime/fall_preview_...without_01.html

Sounds like a perfect use of a "Copter Vision" rig (remote controlled helicopter with attached camera). I'd bet that if you contacted them they'd know about the legalities, or could at least check for you. I've never used them, just passing along the info. I think there are competitors as well: http://coptervision.com/ I've been fortunate enough to fly a few times with different law enforcement agencies -- they can pretty much do whatever they want! And their craft are usually the best maintained.