Frank DiBugnara

What stuck out for me was the use of color, expecially in places where you would never see color in reality. The parking garage was one example....Unmotivated pools of red light all over the background. For some reason it is easy to accept and enjoy all that color in the background. On the rooftop night party scene, the simple practicals on the floor took the location up a notch. The use of color in unusual places really helped turn what could have been a vanilla talking head film into something unique.

Check out this roof top at the link below, especially the reverse shots (not the ones facing the recognizable LA skyline). If it is something you are interested in, let me know and I'll ask the producers for contact information. They building seemed to be very often used for shoots, but we were able to cut a good deal on using just the roof. You see less than a quarter of the roof in this short; there is a second entire roof righ next to this one....you can actually step down from one roof to the other..... www.filmblu.com (probably best to email me and put "LA SKYLINE LOCATION" in the subject at frank@filmblu.com)

Thanks, Toby! I did not make that festival last year...I'd love to see a film print/DI of a project like this sometime..... Yes, that was the actor form Saints and Soldiers (and the little brother from "Charles in Charge") Alex Polinsky, used to go by Alex Niver......

I am shooting two days this week with Pro8mm's Max 8 Classic camera. I shot a few test rolls last week to get a comfort level with the camera.....I have not shot 8mm since high school. This led me to discover that the camera's shutter system does not mimic a traditional 180 degree shutter. I basically ignored the internal light meter and used my own, set to 24 FPS, etc. The result was about a 1 stop underexposure. I then learned that the shutter in the camera operates at more like 1/87th of a second. This means that I'm gonna set the cine meter to about 44 FPS. While I'm sure this is correct, I'd love some confirmation from some other source before I bank so much on this advice. Any other words of wisdom, besides the obvious, for a DP getting reacquainted with 8mm?

You can rent something called a flicker box. It is simply a box that passes current through it and causes the tungsten lamp to flicker. The good ones have several knobs on it that allow you to control the rate of the flicker and the intensities of both the high and the low end of the flicker. It can be believable if set up right. In terms of the quality of light and which instrument to use: If you have the ability before the shoot, it might be fun to actually light a fire somewhere and study what the light does as it bounces off various parts of the room. I did this the other night as I was getting bored with the fireworks show. I kept looking the other way at how the light was hitting faces and wondering what the best way to recreate it would be.

Do you know how old that particular stock is? I'd think about overexposing a full stop or so....

Don't worry....that picture is not representative of the stock....Don't know why it looks so grainy. Yes, the colors were a bit more pastel and generally less contrasty than the '79 and the '74 were---but not nearly as pastel a feel as some of the Vision2 stocks in my opinion (especially '18). The dead give-away on the '77 was always the green for some reason--had a unique tone. None of the unique characteristics were extreme to the point that they could not be mostly compensated for in transfer if you wanted to. Don't forget to over expose a bit as that stock has been out of production for a while and is probably a bit old.

First Call AC's in Arizona are making $500 for ten hours plus $25 Kit rental. Second AC's make just $50 under that, I believe. Arizona is very much a commercial market, though. Of course, less experienced people make less.

I saw it last night and very much loved the cinematography. The film constantly cuts back and forth between the present day and 1950's era flashbacks. I kept trying to figure out what photographic characteristics were unique to each era to make them so incredibly different. I'm sure art direction had a lot to do with it. The flashbacks were all very bright and included a palate of primary colors that were in general timed cooler while the present day was darker/higher contrast, warmer, and more earth-toned. It seemed as though the representation of the 50's was almost part reality and part a younger man's impression of what the 50's were like (The DP was born in 1969). There was almost a sense that he was trying to use some of the photographic techniques of that era, emulating the lighting that would accompany old, slower film stocks. This all served to portray the 50's as an innocent and pristine time in contrast to the severity of the present day. The use of natural light throughout was inspiring and inventive, and even though extreme at times, did not feel forced (something I'm always afraid of when getting gutsy). One scene in particular where light was streaming in through the window and bounced off the floor. You never saw the light hitting the floor, but reflection off what must have been a wood floor onto the actress served as a warm bright and soft key coming from below. By seeing the light on her face, you could imagine what was going on with the light in a part of the room that you never saw. As a DP/Director who does not get to direct as much narrative as I'd like, I realized that when I look at films like this, I'm sort of make-believe auditioning DPs to try to figure out if the film I'm seeing represents the work of someone I'm compatible with artistically. And with this comes the realization that I should not be looking for someone who would light it exactly the way I would, but rather someone who would offer more photographically than I could, but all within compatible artistic taste. I think 95% of the time; the answer was "yes"! The only two things I could remember that jumped out at me were the very cool and sometimes very over exposed practicals in the 50's era (when I think of a 50's era practical, I think of a very warm light, not something that has the look of modern gas-based light, for example) and the bright moonlight that had almost no blue in it. Cinematography is so subjective. One can only hope to work with such incredible artists some day.

Thanks, David....Yes, on one hand greater depth of field would be the way to go to keep tracking marks in focus---When keeping the subject away from the green screen to minimize bounce back combined with shooting 35mm, the tracking marks get mushy so fast. This happened to me a bit on Tuesday---I think I'm gonna hear about it from the compositor. On the other hand, for the close up stuff, it is nice to be able to focus on eyes and let the neck tie go soft....which should still be easy to achieve even with 2/3" chips and long glass. I won't know exactly what the producer is willing to pay for until I show him real numbers including travel time/costs for the gear and shipping in a DIT who knows what he's doing with that particular package (the only DITs in Phoenix that I know of are F-900/Varicam only). So I'll hit up some of the bigger more common rental houses on Monday morning. But if anyone has suggestions on houses to rent Viper, F950, F23, Arri D20--I'd love to at least quote it. The question is just how much with all honesty and in good faith can I really talk up the quality improvement of a 4:4:4 system? I also have never shot with anything better than the F-900 in the HD world. I think the F-900 provides plenty of information to pull a good key, when shot under the right circumstances. My concern is getting the subject to look better.

I am preparing to shoot a spot next month. Image quality is very important to the producer but he would like to rule out film so as to be able to just "let the camera roll" a lot. It is a talking head in-studio green screen job. We are toying with the idea of shooting two cameras at all times--one on a dolly creeping back and forth on a wide shot and one on a longer lens on a floating medium shot. I am struggling with camera selection. I have shot many green screen projects with the F-900/3 and have not been thrilled with the result. I can't rule out that the post production path or color correction was part of the reason for my dissatisfaction. Is it worth trying to move up to a Genesis for the shoot? I know they are in demand and might not even be available. Would I see a huge difference over the Sony in a standard definition final product? Would a more current Sony model produce a significantly better image (the 2/3" chips worry me, though). What other options should I consider? On a practical note: the shoot is in Phoenix, AZ.

Thank you. We lit all the interiors but did not light most of the exteriors.

I just finished shooting a music video for some friends. It was super16, 4 1/2 days of run and gun shooting, pretty low budget. The director was very much into a rough, unpolished, hand held look. "Raw and natural" was the catch phrase for the shoot. He wanted everything (except for the performance stuff) to seem as though it were shot in available light. We ended up lighting everything interior--he was happy with what we got. He wanted the performance stuff to look over the top. It has been pretty well received by the label, the band, MTV, Fuse, etc. Definitely more of a hit with younger audiences than older.... Production Stills Entire Music Video: "Stateside"

I have often wondered but never asked about the charging characteristics of this onboard battery charger for my SR3 Advanced. It seems as though, regardless of the battery's charge, the red LED's stay on for a while. Here's what I'm wondering: 1) Does it have any "smart charging" ability? Does it know anything about the charge of the battery at any given time? What determines its charge time? Can it trickle charge? 2) What then is the best strategy for "topping off" a battery that has not been used for a few weeks the night before a shoot? 3) Given this type of charger, what is the best way to maintain the life of my newly-recelled onboards between shoots? Thanks....

How about just straight reversal (not cross-processed?) Kodak's newest reversal stock will be most subtle, its older stock less subtle, but still a look. If you are shooting on 16mm, does that mean straight to video? Maybe just a creative color-correction will be enough? I don't think changing between any of the modern color negative stocks alone is going to bring you any significant difference.

Well, obviously the Techno comes to mind first: www.supertechno.com The advantages is that when you get to the second half of you move, you don't have to physically move the base as far away from the subject. Beware it is often a three-person job (one person booming, one telescoping, and one on crank wheels). Not always easy to get a perfect move coordinating the three people who don't usually work together without much rehersal. You can also put the Techno on a track to get even more lateral movement or to get a super fast tracking shot (when you telescope and move the base on a track in the same direction at the same time). But that shot can be achieved with a non-telescoping arm on a track: www.jimmyjib.com One person can do this move (I did it once....kind of a pain) but it might be better to have one boom and pan tilt, another move the base, and a third rack focus. Obviously, wide lenses are usually the choice for this shot: move is more dramatic, focus is easier, and you might find that your starting position does not need to be as high as you think it needs to be.

I would not rule out 7201----Great stock, already daylight blanaced, you can beat it up and still get good results.

I just noticed a few interesting comments from the ICG article: One example was a scene where Toschi and Armstrong go to interview famed personal injury attorney, Melvin Belli, who had received a hand-written Christmas card from the Zodiac in late December, 1969. Savides used separate close-ups on each investigator that were, in his words, ?extremely dark.? He says because the location was crammed tight with equipment, he had to use bounced light off the dark-wood ceiling. ?I was concerned we?d gone too far for the Viper and needed to see the scene projected,? he recalls. ?I recently saw a finished digital screening, and I was happy with it. It?s hard to put into words, but the imagery is evocative, and makes you feel something.? Another interesting excerpt: Savides says the rewards about working with the Viper have to be put into perspective. ?The benchmark for me has always been film, and this was a more challenging way to make a movie,? Savides concludes. ?I feel like we?re still experiencing digital cinematography in its infancy, and there are a lot of growing pains. We?re basically replacing large, cumbersome film cameras and crews with even more complex and cumbersome digital technology, with results that are roughly equal to, or in some cases, not as good as film. If this technology leads to the creation of a more flexible and streamlined shooting process, then that would be great. If I was part of that change with Zodiac then that would be great.?

The film was the absolute darkest I've seen in a long time. After hearing so many stories about how studios get uptight about not being able to see expensive actors well, it was interesting to see five-minute dialogue sequences where the main character's entire face is what looks like (in the film equivalent) 3.5 stops under key. There was something refreshing about the dark scenes, where we are actively straining to extract detail from a very dark image--and I think it fit the story well (although it really kept attracting my attention). I could not help but think that there was a certain amount of risk involved in that, as I?m sure there are a few old dim projectors in small towns where the little detail that I was seeing was just about gone. The darkness in the film made me ponder the difference between a low-budget/available light film and one that's got the money to be brighter and chooses to be darker. Among all the super-dark stuff, there were not any shots that had that the typical low-end available light feel... Probably a tribute to the DP. The film looked very soft to me, though I did happen to see it on a very big screen. Something about the softness too seemed to fit the era--perhaps better suited for 1970 than a razor-sharp print.

I agree....I think the SDX900 is the best SD camera out there....so I'm very excited about the HDX....

For a spot this year, we were able to get local fire to provide rain for our shoot. We found the best result was when we could get the firefighters and hose 20 feet in the air--in our case using a scissor lift. They then shot a medium to narrow stream straight up. By the time the water came down sixty feet later, it looked like very believable rain. We had two hoses going at the same time for more spread. Also, we found it was easier to use a tanker truck than to deal with all the water permits needed to tap into the hydrants. With many short takes, we only used half the water in the truck. If you are able to get these shots outside, maybe something like this would be an option for you.

Well first of all, you shot standard 16 which is naturally going to appear more grainy than super. Blacks and highlights look good so the exposure seems healthy (although the clouds are a bit hot in the second picture.) I'd guess that the grainy results are a combination of a lower-resolution lens and old telecine. Also, keep in mind that your two examples of 7217 are much tighter shots which will naturally give the appearance of a sharper image even if all the other variables are the same. Yes, I think Spirit is a great way to go--especially for 16mm. It's known as one of the sharpest machines. You can always make something less sharp after the fact with good results.

I'm happy you find it useful. Yes, zooms always make shooting faster, especially on a tight schedule. I'd always pick a prime if I can, but at the same time I don't feel that this particular zoom produces a significantly degraded image on the small screen. I'm told that the Optex modification for super 16 on this lens introduces some degradation, but I'm not sure if that's true or how significant that is. On exteriors, I think I tried to keep that lens at a 4 or so for best resolution (and to help out the AC a little on focus for walking shots). For interiors I had decent-size instruments and I did switch to 7205 so stop was not an issue. I think I was also around a 2.8/4 split.

Steve, As far as I can remember, the zoom lens shots were: (considering that a new shot is every picture change) numbers 3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,18

Elliot, My stuff was a standard def transfer to DigiBeta off a Spirit. The fact that your 7217 (I assume telecine on the same machine) looks better makes me think that perhaps you had bad stock or made an accidental exposure error. Were there any other variables like different lenses? Post some screen grabs when you can.....