Michael Nash

No offense, but maybe your long experience with video doesn't go back far enough to include 3/4" drag-along decks and tape-to-tape editing :P To me video is NTSC, PAL, SECAM or HD, with or without the sub-carrier. It's a signal that is encoded a certain way and can only be transmitted and displayed in that arrangement. You can capture, store, edit, and massage that information digitally as some other file type; but only the captured and displayed image on a monitor is video. A quicktime file (for example) isn't video -- it's a quicktime file. My point here is that video is a SIGNAL. Moving electronic images are not automatically video until they're formatted as one of those mentioned signals. An image can begin life as video, get captured onto your computer as a type of moving image file that's NOT video (it's no longer NTSC/PAL/whatever) and be spit back out onto DVD, whereby the player CONVERTS it back to video that can be seen by your TV. So much of your experience with video on computers, well, ISN'T. :D It used to be and will again be video, but on the computer it's not. So when Dominic talks about 2K DI not being video, he's right. Those images never get encoded or dealt with as a video signal, but instead as another digital file type that has none of the characteristics of a video signal. I think you're partially right about film purists not wanting their film to be helped out by video, because video signals in the strictest sense are pretty limiting and frankly, pretty crappy. Digital technology however (even the tiniest 640x480 QT files), is very flexible, scalable (which video isn't) and powerful. Moving digits around is pretty easy, compared to moving around a true video signal. That's one reason online video hardware is so f*&^*g expensive while a desktop video system isn't.

I think it's completely different for each film and filmmaker. Much of the time grain becomes a distracting "veil" between the viewer and the subject, and want your images to be as unimpeded by artifacts as possible. Other times grain is deliberately used as a texture, even when going through a DI. Check out "21 Grams" or "Thirteen" (shot on Super-16). There was a trend in the 1990's in music videos especially to amp-up the grain as an expressive device. These days there's a lot of that slick look, and lens flares are the "in" thing. So trends can also influence what visual artifacts and devices filmmaker might choose, and grain is just one of them. But even when going through a DI there's still the subtle, almost imperceptible grain in the print. Even with the cleanest DI, a film print will always restore a little of that subtle film look. Optical and chemical technques like blowing up Super-35 or Super-16, push-processing and silver retention only add more grain to the image. So if you only want a LITTLE bit of grain, sometimes you err on the side of making the image as clean and grainless as possible, knowing that there will always be some there.

You can also use a small mirror the same way. Take a piece of 12" mirror tile and mask it with black paper tape to the shape/size slit you want. Just as with the foamcore technique you need enough distance between the light and the "stencil" to make the shadow edges sharp. Mount it firmly in a C-stand with a gator grip. It's basically the same idea, it just allows you to get a little more distance in a confined space, and sometimes it's easier to precisely angle just the mirror. Of course Dedo lights are prefect for this also, but the mirror/stencil technique is easy on a low budget or if you don't happen to have Dedo's in your lighting package.

Within the Arri line you'll want to look at the 16BL as the cheapest/simplest QUIET synch-sound camera. And as Mitch said, it may or may not have a crystal-synch motor. One 16BL I used had two drives that you could switch in the field; a battery powered wild motor and an AC-powered contstant speed motor that got its synch off the electric power cycle. I shot synch sound with it just fine, but every time you wanted to go battery powered you had to switch out a little gear inside the camera. BL's also need the lens blimp to be quiet enough for sound shooting, and the lenses tend to be matched with the blimp. That limits you to the common Angeniuex 12-120 or 9.5-95 zooms, neither of which are exactly stellar in quality. There are some prime lens blimps out there, but they're harder to come by. But in the price range of a BL you might also consider the cameras that Mitch mentioned -- the Eclair NPR and ACL, and the CP-16. If you just want a "pickup" camera that can run at crystal speed for a little less money, then you can find an Arri S with a Tobin motor. In a worst-case scenario you could try to barney the camera yourself with blankets and whatnot, but it would become cumbersome for extensive dialogue shooting (no orientable eyepiece under all that dampeneing, for one thing). At least you could shoot under HMI's and fluorescents without flicker.

No, nor do I care! :P Academic knowledge without practical experience is pretty much worthless. Practical experience without academic understanding is also worthless. You've got to have both. Maybe BECAUSE you're only 20 years old and in school is why you don't quite grasp what it's like to amass years of experience and knowlege and still feel like a neophyte. You'll understand, someday! It's hard to explain the feeling. When you truly have a passion for something you yearn to get better, if only so that you can do more. Maybe you're confusing "competence" with "mastery." Even once you reach mastery, you strive for excellence, innovation and beyond. Without that drive, you won't get past mere competence. Video class would have taught you more about filmMAKING than still photography would. It's good that you got the technical education in film-based photography, but much of what a cinematographer does is design, coordinate, and manage the events needed to tell a story on film. The photographic image is only one component of a motion picture, and the DP has to be an expert at SO much more than just that...

You can indeed change the tubes -- they're standard 48", allowing you to put whatever flavor bulb in there you like. One of the advantages of a multi-tube unit is the ability to mix up the type of bulbs, so you could quickly switch between or mix color temperatures by selecting which tubes to turn on. The Image 80 is similar to the Wall-o-light, using 8 48" tubes instead of 10. Just slightly smaller and lighter weight, also with the self-contained ballast. http://kinoflo.com/

It's the type of thing you'll definitely have to test. How you apply the net (how much you stretch it) can affect the look; as does focal length, f-stop, lighting, and so on. The type of net or stocking is only part of the equation. If you want to get really creative you can experiment with different colors. Black is the most common as it's color-neutral on the image and doesn't milk up the shadows too much, but nets and stockings come in every color under the sun. I've used "nude" or "natural" color for a slight sepia/nostalgia look; and other pinkish/salmon or "cosmetic" colors can be used in glamour closeups. The color shifts most in the shadows and least in the highlights, like flashing with colored light. It's not an even, overall color shift like you get with colored filters. The usual caveats about nets -- make sure you use a wide aperture and longer focal length lenses to narrow your depth of field and get the most out of the effect. Too much D.O.F. can reveal the net pattern on the image. Watch for the net pattern in out-of-focus highlights in the BG. Usually this looks cool but sometimes it can be distracting. Just be aware of it and apply it judiciously. Also don't forget to compensate your exposure a little bit if the net is heavy; since it's usually stretched across the back of the lens there's no real way to rate the filter factor. Use your judgement and open the aperture a little.

Also don't forget that TV monitors are daylight balanced (or close to it).

Personally I've never been bothered by losing a little of the flame to white-out in a flash like that. For one thing, if you expose for the face you catch a little orange glow on the face while losing a little detail in the flame itself, which can make the whole thing seem hotter and more dramatic. But with video it's often a fine line since there's so little margin for overexposure. A good second-unit trick I've learned whenever you're going to be doing highspeed or explosions is to light your main setup with a double scrim in each light. Then when it comes time to add one more stop for higher frame rates, all you do is pull the scrims while retaining all the other nuances of the lighting you've setup. Another trick you could experiment with in video is turning up the knee saturation. Under normal conditions this produces ugly and garish color to the highlights, but in this case it would put a little orange back into the flame. If you're concerned about losing the flame against a brighter background, you could use a little color to create contrast instead. A slight blue to the background would offset the orange while being closer to a normal exposure.

What do you mean? I'm sure it's right there in the manual in plain Japanenglish. If that doesn't work, I'm sure you can find the info easily on the Sony website :P Okay, now that I've had a minute to stop laughing (ahem). Let me see if I remember how to access the engineering menu. When you power up the camera in the method I described, it should take you to the "top" menu, giving you the choices of "operation," "paint," and "engineering." Take a look in each menu until you find what you're looking for. If the menus aren't laid out that way, ther may be another trick. On the D-35 I often shoot with, there's a little switch on the side of the camea (behind a sliding door) that says "standard" or "file." When you slide the switch up to "file" while in the menus, it opens up several more pages of menus that let you program custom looks. Detail enhancement may be in there. Trouble is all the Sony cameras are similar, but not EXACTLY the same. And as you've found, the manuals are all but useless :( When you DO find the detail, you'll probaly find that you don't want to turn it completely off; instead you can dial it down quite a bit to minimize the ugly outline but still get a little bit of sharpening. On the DSR-500 for example, I've found a value of -50 (out of +/- 99) looks about right. If you have time, you might also play with turning the detail FREQUENCY up while leaving the level alone. This makes the enhanced outline thinner but still functioning the same amount.

Beware of overexposing a neg. too much for telecine; you can get video noise in bright and color-saturated areas. If you're planning to desaturate the color in telecine anyway, there's no real reason to overexpose the 7218. You'll have more room to adjust contrast and color with less deleterious effect on the image if you just expose it more normally (maybe only 1/3 stop over). 7246 is a pretty robust stock that doesn't change too dramatically with alternative exposures and processing. On its own you'll find the color and contrast a bit richer than you would the '18. Again, expose it normally for the cleanest image in telecine and the most room for manipulation. If you're planning to crush the blacks a bit in post anyway, then it doesn't really matter what contrast the stock gives you. At that point your only real concern is the practicality of shooting with either 250 ASA or 320 ASA ('18 rated normally with an 85 filter). Not a huge difference. I haven't compared the grain of the '46 and the '18 side-by-side with similar conditions, but I wouldn't expect a huge difference there either. From a practical standpoint the 7218 will give you some advantage in the case of uncontrolled shadows or losing too much ambient daylight. In a worst case scenario you can pull the 85 filter and shoot uncorrected at 500 ASA if you lose daylight, knowing you can color correct in post.

The only thing I've never understood about the NPR is how to mount a follow focus and mattebox onto it. The high clearance between the motor base and the lens precludes the use of a conventional bridgeplate/iris rod system. Is there a special "step-up" adapter for lens accessories made for the NPR?

I'm not familiar with the BNW-7, but with recent-generation Sony cameras there is a special way to access additional menus in the camera. There should be either a thumbwheel or up/down buttons for making selections in the menu. With the camera powered down, depress and continue to hold the menu button (thumbweel or "up" button) and power up the camera -- with the button still depressed. When the camera turns on you should see the user-programmable menu pages in the viewfinder. You can then let go of the button. If it doesn't work at first, you may need to let the camera power down for a few more seconds before trying it again. I believe zebra #1 is programmable, while zebra #2 usually only lets you select 100%. There will be a menu line for zebra 1, 2, or 1/2. I believe the zebra 1 value is programmed on another line on the same page. At the bottom of each menu page is an option to exit the menu, and clear the pages from the viewfinder. To access them again you have to use the same startup procedure.

You've already gotten some good responses about maintaining f-stops throughout a scene. Personally, I try to keep it about the same unless there's a need to change it. In the case that David already mentioned, sometimes on an insert or extreme closeup you might select to bring up the f-stop to restore a little more depth of field. Or you might deliberately choose to drop the D.O.F. for dramatic effect. So I'll address the other aspect of your post, which is getting along with the various personalities that DP's bring to the set. I've been involved in film and video production for 15 years; been DP'ing for probably 10, and since moving to LA 5 years ago I've held the subordinate positions of AC, operator and gaffer for other DP's while continuing to shoot for myself. There's a learning curve that comes to "stepping down" from the position of DP and working for someone else. You'll likely find that DP's come in all shapes and sizes, and bring a huge variety of experience, temperament, and styles to the set. Your job as "right hand man" is to get along with the DP and help him/her do his/her job. Sometimes this takes some serious teeth-gnashing and tongue-biting to get through the day, but with the proper attitude you can make it, and as Bill Cosby used to say "and if you're not careful, you might even learn something" (okay, I guess that dates me). As the gaffer you're working for the DP. It doesn't matter if the DP is a neophyte, a veteran shooter or in your case a veteran/neophyte. Your job is still to help him do his project. As you indicated your job is to manage the lighting and let the DP do his thing, but when the questions such as f-stops come up you allow the DP to ply his trade the way he sees fit. If he offers you an explanation and you don't agree with it it's generally best to let it go. The very act of discussing it brings it out into the open, and then there's no question as to whether it's the DP's decision or your own. Whenever possible I try to get in a little discussion time with the DP during preproduction or scout to suss out the DP's approach and personality. Sometimes they're very knowledgeable and I actually learn something from them; sometimes they're right there with my own sensibilities and we hit it off great, and other times the DP is very confident in their ability although their style is the polar opposite of mine. And on rare occasion you just encounter an idiot who's in way over their head. But no matter the personality, I always approach the project like a roller coaster you're not sure if you're really going to enjoy. You challenge yourself to hang on for the ride, and find the best way to get through it. One trick I learned is allow yourself a "cooling off" period when a decision rubs you the wrong way. I've learned to let some things go, then bring them up later at a more opportune moment. Lunch is a great time to sidle up to the DP and discuss philosophies about lighting and likes/dislikes in movies. In the neutral setting of a casual lunch, you can be more open about your own approach and treat each other as equals, rather than in the hierarchy and pressure of production. Sometimes you'll learn something new and valid; sometimes you'll disagree, and sometimes you'll simply discover common ground. I recently gaffed a project where the DP was also a longtime grip and gaffer, but a short-time DP. He was a royal pain in the ass to work for, but I kept my chin up and tried my best to offer him every bit of support I could. Upon wrap he said his good-byes to the crew as we were all at the liftgate of the grip truck, and when he got to me he offered a special big and gracious THANK YOU. A couple days later he called me to give me an update on the dailies and thanked me again for all my hard work. I've never gotten a post-production phone call from a DP before.

I've worked on a couple wire-work shows; the last one about two weeks ago. Pretty much what Phil says sums it up. It's basically stunt work, and like any stunt it requires the proper setup time to pull it off correctly (and multiple takes to get it right for camera). The shots need to be planned carefully as it takes time to position everything, and the moves need to be choreographed and rehearsed. The director, DP, stunt coordinator and stunt performer all need to be on the same page to know what will work and what to expect. Sometimes a simple adjustment like "go faster" or "swing more to the left" just isn't possible due to physics. The rigs I've seen are pretty simple, involving a performer in a harness and a single cable, connected to a rope and pulley hung on the bottom of a condor basket. Two or three strong men (trained wire workers) hold the other end of the rope and control the performer's up and down position. That said, DO NOT TRY THIS YOURSELF based on my description. I'm just relaying what I've seen, and it's a serious safety issue to attempt something like this. Hire professionals. Also with the single cable rig there is the tendency for the performer to spin. Usually the performer will hold a guide rope to orient their position just before the take, and then let go of the rope just as the camera rolls. Like all stuntwork, the stunt itself is usually isolated to one particular move with stunt players, covered with two cameras. The rest of the action is then covered in closer shots with the real actors. Regarding wire removal in post, I've been told it's easier at higher resolutions (simply more information to work with). If it's a lockdown shot, you can shoot a clean background plate to give the compositor something to cover the wire with. If it's a moving shot, sometimes they clone pixels adjacent to the wire or even from adjacent frames to come up with the missing information. But I'm not a post FX person, so I've never had to do it myself! From a DP's perspective, just remember that you're lighting and focusing on an object that's in midair -- you may have to wait until rehearsal for stand-in ("hang-in"?) for final lighting tweaks and focus marks.

I'm still learning the subtleties of desktop video manipulations, so I'm not sure I have the right answer for you. I'm used to Avid and telecine post on broadcast tape formats. Too much color correction in DV25 colorspace will reveal compression artifacts that appear "noisy"; not exactly like film grain but could appear similar or aggravate what grain is there. This could be PART of what you're seeing. As for the other problem, let me see if I've got this straight -- you're seeing a difference in the color and noise between the NTSC output before encoding to DVD, compared to playback from the DVD? That sounds like a problem with the DVD encoding -- bearing in mind that whatever compression artifacts you introduce during editing will only be compounded once it goes to DVD (depending on the bitrate). Also make sure your screens are calibrated to the same signal. Try running color bars and any other test patterns you can to both your NTSC monitor that's tied to your system, and the larger TV that's hooked up to your DVD player. You've got to start eliminating the variables between all the hardware before you can really tell what you're looking at. Try running color bars straight to your TV, then play color bars from a DVD and compare the chroma and blacks. Are they the same? If not, then is it a hardware issue (connection) or a signal issue (encoding on the DVD)? Start at one end of the pipeline and work your way back until the behavior of every interface is accounted for. I'm sure other folks here like Phil and Alvin are much more on top of this issue than I am. I'm a cameraman with lots of broadcast experience, but I'm just starting to learn the issues of desktop post so I can start cutting demo DVD's at home.

More and better gear allows you more and better control, which allows you to make more and better choices. Eliminating this gear takes away control and therefore choices, but not ALL of them. If you can make decent images with basic equipment, than you should be able to make excellent images with the best equipment (and circumstances). Of course tools let you do things photographically that you couldn't do without them. But the beauty of filmmaking is that there's always ANOTHER way to shoot something. That's where the TALENT of cinematography comes in, to complement the tools (and vice-versa). Talent can produce images with a minimum of tools. Tools can't produce squat with the talent behind them. Put talent and tools together and then you get images that people talk about. I've always felt that 90% of cinematography problems are solved by avoiding the problem in the first place -- rather than by throwing masses of gear, crew and time to overcome them. If you can stage action so it's not against the window, then you don't have to ND the window, build up your fill light, or do the iris pull. Learn to plan ahead, learn common problems and think creatively, and you'll find yourself accomplishing a lot with a minimum of gear. A classic example is in blocking. If you know you're going to cover a scene in a master and two reverse angles, block the action so that it works for all three shots. Time and time again I've seen productions block for the master only, and then find themselves painted into a corner when they have to move in for coverage. There's no room for the camera, the actor's against a difficult or ugly background, and the lighting becomes difficult. Then they have to start cheating things too much and spend time on complicated lighting rigs to overcome their own problem. A talented (in this case experienced) DP would know to line up the reverse angles during the blocking. Three minutes of planning saves thirty minutes of work and 300 lbs. of gear.

Another take on what David said... Lighting with one light at a time will help you learn the output of a given light (set it up, meter it, modify the light with scrims or difussion, meter again), and will also show you the contribution of that light to the scene. It sounds like you're at the point where you need to build up experience with the different lighting units, so do yourself the favor of allowing yourself the time to learn. Once you know a given light in a certain setup, you can start to extrapolate other setups. For example, say you find that a 1K open-face bounced into a 2'x3 bounceboard gives a key light of 2.8 at 500 ASA at a distance of 8 feet. If you need to obtain a 4.0 stop (twice as much light), then you might need a 2k instead. Or if you need a 2.0 stop you'd have to put a double scrim in the light, or maybe drop down to a 500W or 650W light, adjusting the brightness a little with the flood/spot. Try the same technique for hard lights at a bigger distance. In general, if you need twice the light level (one more f-stop), you need a lamp of the same design that's twice the wattage. Or half as bright a light for one stop less. After a while you'll start to build up your "vocabulary" of lights for different setups. Of course there are finer points to all this, like the difference in output between a fresnel, par, and open-face, and the difference in output between tungsten and HMI of similar wattage. And the difference in falloff between hard lights and soft lights. But try to learn one light at a time and digest the "rules" that govern the way light behaves. Stick to one type of setup for a while until you feel you've reached a certain level of competency, then try to expand by learning another type of setup. Like anything else it takes practice, and it takes time.

Speaking form recent experience, a 6K HMI fresnel is an awesome light for night exteriors with 500T film. You'll be able to back it way off and light a large portion of the frame at an adequate stop with that one light (the fresnel gives a nice even spread over a larger area than a par, at the expense of a little bit of output). But like David says, you need to figure out what you need for your particular setup. You may be better off with several smaller lights like 4K's and 2.5's instead of one big light, to hit different areas of your frame.

I was at Slow Motion last week, and Anatoli showed me a couple Elite anamorphics that had just come back from a Chrysler commercial. These are indeed large lenses, and apparently the production had the camera waving around in the air on a Shotmaker, WITHOUT a lens support. Needeless to say the lens mounts were tweaked, and the camera didn't fare much better :(

Because they use a lens system that it separate from the bulb which can aid in greatly controlling the light. The light is also much more expensive than the simple Parcan, which is essentially a headlight in a bucket. It's also worth pointing out that a Source Four has a very limited beam spread -- they typically come in 19 and 26 degree versions. You do the math to figure out the size circle of light you'd get a given distance. Imagine focusing ALL the light from a 575W or 750W bulb into a circle that's only say 24" across. That's some punch. I use the 750W version of the Source Four all the time. They're really made as "pattern projectors" (also called ellipsoidal or Leko lights) that focus the image cutout in a small metal slide (gobo), inserted in the middle of the lamp. Mostly designed for theatrical effects, but they've made their way into television and film. The units also have four adjustable blades that allow you to cut the beam into a square or trapezoid with very sharp edges. Sometimes I use them to create a window light on a wall, adjusting the blades to create parllel edges to counteract the beam spread. Source Fours are also great for bouncing light from a long distance. Sometimes you can run one all the way up to the ceiling and fire it across the room, making a slit of light just above a window, so that it enhances the light coming in through the window (when it's not feasable to put a Kino above the window). A million and one uses.

Greg, wasn't there a 40mm and a 100mm that you used in the hospital scene in "Pearl Harbor"?

Silly question, but I've never put it to the test. Can you photograph an NTSC image displayed on an LCD multi-synch monitor without flicker (24fps/180 shutter)? I'm thinking of a standard video image fed live to a multi-synch desktop computer monitor. Common sense tells me it should work, but I'm unclear on exactly how the monitor converts and displays the NTSC signal. I was surprised to read in AC that the background plates for process shots on the show "24" are shot with a 60i PD-150 and projected with an LCD projector to get around flicker issues.

Adding to the already good common-sense responses here... I've been shooting for 15 years and gaffing a bit the last couple years, and I don't own a color meter. As a gaffer sometimes it's a liability when you're working with an uptight DP, but honestly, there are down-and-dirty tricks that let you get around a $1000 meter. First off, the "recipe" for color correction gel is pretty simple: Full CTO on HMI's makes them tungsten balanced; full CTB on tungsten lights makes them daylight balanced. Of course ther are subtle differences in lights and gels that can lead to slight bit of error. But in general, if the color is "wrong" enough to be seen on film your eye will start to see it, too. For finding the green in fluorescents, try looking through a piece of CTO gel or an 85 filter. This cancels out the blue wavelenghts and makes it easier to see the green. Compare it to a color-correct light source and see the difference. And really, I've seen color meters come up WRONG more times than I've seen them help. Maybe those were just isolated events, but I don't automatically trust the meter when my eyes and experience tell me different. But I've run across an even BETTER color meter, at least for practical use. My little $200 Sony digital still camera (DSC-P32) exaggerates differences in color temp more than film or video. Mismatches in color temp show up visibly and plain-as-day on the little LCD in my hand. Not exactly scientific, and you still have to make an educated guess at what gel you'll need to fix the problem. But on a practical level it works.

..Obviously coming in late on this discussion. 7279 overexposed one stop will likely give you telecine noise, especially in the reds. Been there, done that. For telecine I wouldn't go more than 2/3 over and pump up the rest in color correction. For print the results are different, where you might get grayish or dirty-looking whites if you have to print down too much. Push processing does a lot to snap up the color and contrast, but obviously also raises the grain in an already mildly grainy stock. Probably not the direction you want to go based on your description. Of course this post comes a month late, so, what did you do and how did it come out, Stijn? I'm curious Mitch, why did you suggest pull processing? To get tighter grain so there's less noise and grain when pushing the chroma in telecine? I never considered that, but it makes sense...