Aaron Moorhead

I think that you should just embrace what you have! Keep some fast lenses on you, and focus on your camerawork. It could be really useful to have a 1x1 or brick-style LitePanel, but that might attract more attention -- it is a beacon, after all. Good luck!

I was in a DGA Q&A by Aronofsky, who answered a question similar to yours. He said the point was to make an ugly film, one that didn't feel comfortable, but felt real and visceral. He got away with it because the film was not supposed to be noticed for its aesthetics. We all know Libatique is stunningly talented, but the lighting (at least) in that film was often less beautiful/polished than a lot of his other films. We can say the same about the camerawork too, with the knowledge that it was a very conscious choice we can come back and call it beautiful again, if it made us feel emotionally the way we were supposed to. It did, for me.

Also, not a bad possibility is that you were watching a poorly transferred version. Netflix is especially guilty about the quality of their transfers (but I wouldn't put it past a TV station either). A lot of stuff that was shot at 24 fps, then telecined to 29.97, then back with a bad pulldown or with a weak framerate reconform, have ghosting and flickering errors in scenes with a lot of movement or detail.

Almost every time it's best to be an LLC. It's designed for small business.

Probably ISO 500, White Balance Tungsten, F stop is whatever's on your motion camera, shutter is 1/48 (or 1/50, which is darned close). Might want to make some picture profile settings too, mainly to decrease saturation and contrast a tad.

You can use any practical light at all, then control its exposure. In the example of using small tungsten practicals such as a standing lamp, you can bring your own very low wattage bulbs, normally between 15 and 60 watts (available at any Home Depot or anywhere that sells bulbs), putting the fixture on a dimmer and dimming down (which will change your color temp, but is highly controllable), or if the light is in a shade and you can't see the source directly, you can wrap it or the shade with ND gel if need be.

Simply stunning. Love every bit of it. If you ever need a hand on a shoot out of LA, drop me a line.

I think that it depends on the your opinion on the role of the audience in the film, as well as the director's. I think that the sadness and loneliness of the character will come out the absolute most in the person's eyes -- the window into the soul. I think we will feel HER disconnectedness if we don't see the eyes, but will feel disconnected from the character ourselves if we don't. Also, consider knocking out some of the lights at the top in large segments, so there's a bit of light/dark depth in the factory.

We found some really awesome results (thanks to an on-point production designer) with Scotchbrite reflective tape and a 2 way mirror. Not the same as a blacklight, but works really well for what we're doing. Now the question is how to keep the light and mirror on the precise same axis as the camera as it zooms all around the set on a dolly and jib. We're thinking of removing the need for the mirror by using an LED ringlite. Anyone done this before? Testing it tomorrow. We're still using blacklights, but the need for enormous light quantities of blacklight is no longer as important for the purpose we're using it for (the Scotchbrite replaced it), so we're just going to use 3 Kino fatboys with blacklight tubes in them and walk them right up next to camera. Thoughts? Thanks! Aaron

I'm shooting a music video with costumes that have ultraviolet strips on them. I'm shooting pieces of it on Phantom around 500 fps, so I assume I need a lot of punch to get those strips to glow, which is really tough to do with blacklight. I've done a good amount of talking with people who have shot under blacklight a lot, and gather that it's basically all a reflective measure and there's really no way to ambiently measure the blacklight. How would you suggest that I get the biggest punch of of my blacklights? - I have 5 10ks, I was wondering if I could use something like Lee Ultimate Violet or Lee Congo Blue ( http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/product...ours/showall:1/ ) on them to get the most punch, place them right behind camera. I might be just misunderstanding blacklights, though. Is it possible to convert a tungsten source to a blacklight with just a gel, or is it in the nature of the bulb itself? I know the light transmission on those gels is very stiff, which is why I was thinking of huge sources. - Perhaps use blacklight tubes from Kino? If so, how do I avoid flicker, and also, how do I get enough exposure without dozens of banks of blacklight kinos? Thanks for the help in advance.

Got this program, and I really like it. On the note of cine apps, anyone know of an online application or anything that's like PocketLD, but I can use it on my laptop?

Consider asking your art department to make up some pounds bags. They're small sacs made of really thin cloth and filled with flour, and before the shot you pound them together to make the dust float around.

Thanks!

I've been looking around for a definitive answer on this one and come up empty. A lot of people have complained that the 7d is not full frame. However, looking at relative frame sizes, it seems that the 7d's 1.6x crop factor is actually equivalent to that of larger motion picture formats (Super35, RED). So, by extension, Super35 and Red aren't full frame either. To put it another way: if I put a 50mm lens on a 7d and on a RED from the exact same position, will I get the same frame size? I know the answer seems obvious, but I am curious if this is only an issue because it's different for STILL photographers, but in the world of cinematography it's a moot point. Here's a sensor/frame size comparison from RED: http://www.red.com/cameras/technology/ Also, I have a small director's viewfinder from FilmTools -- can I trust the S35 markings for my 7d lenses? Thanks! Aaron

I would say EXTREMELY soft, several stops under (depending on the latitude of your medium), just rimming/topping (no fill) and slightly cold or neutral. If you go any strong color preference, people will infer the wrong things (warm - tungsten light source, cold - moonlight), which you don't want them to even subconsciously think about. Do you have to see anything very clearly in the scene, or is it just dialogue?

Stunning, David. I'm now really interested in this shot -- when you say it's just a brown world, do you mean it looked just like that to eye? It's not just the color, but the whole shot looks like it's one of those hyper-real HDR photo meshes. I should probably conclude that it's a combination of lighting and such, but it's really a showstopping look to me. Anything else used to nail down that specific look that you can recall so I can then take that idea and rip it off :)?

As I start to nail down DIT/wrangler gigs, this stuff is exceptionally useful. I particularly like detailed workflow explanations. Great stuff, keep it coming!

Hey man, Just some quick answers here: Ryland's cam (I think he has a Sony FX-1 or a Z1-U) interlacing is a problem you can "fix in post." Ultimately, the interlacing lines can be made to disappear by going through a deinterlacing process. FCP can do it for you. The EX-1 and EX-3 are different in ergonomics, really. The EX-3 has a built in shoulder pad (the EX1 is built for "handicam" style recording), it has a viewfinder attached to the LCD rather than seperate (surprisingly useful if you've used the EX-1 and realized how impossible critical focus is on its crappy EVF on the back of the cam) and it has a removable lens, so you can mount 35mm lenses if you have the proper adapter. It also has some minor adjustments to where the controls are, like the varispeed being a hard button rather than in the software of the menu system. So, in terms of making a purchase, I'd go for the EX-3 just because the little stuff adds up in a big way, but for rental for a day or two...go with whatever saves you money :). P2 is pricey as hell, but the cams can both take Firestore drives and some other proprietary drives, I think, and/or do a direct out through HDMI which gives you better colorspace anyways. I haven't done that yet, I've just done P2. The drives cost a pretty penny and you want to be careful because you can lose your data from a good bump, but you can shoot hours and hours with it, so it's definitely good for doc work. The battery life on these things is KICKASS, though, so you can probably shoot a whole day on one or two tiny little batts. Let me know how it works out! Aaron

I would avoid Red if the question is "2k or 4k?" If there's any question that you might not need 4k on a 90 min short film, don't do it. Red is HEAVY, your operator will die, and the hard drive and dual mount batteries are extra weight. If you're just outing to DVD, television, or even 35mm blowup for smaller screen theatrical distribution, you won't really need anything heftier than an EX3 with a 35mm adapter, a cam which is built for operating with one hand and I still was sweating after opping it for a couple 2 minute takes. Add to that remote focus, remote video monitor, and all the other crap that hangs off of a rig that can't have people nearby during the take, and you've got a Steadicam operator's nightmare. Consider a lighter camera like the EX1 or EX3, and consider modifying your requirements for a real steadicam or some spinoff that's built for lightweight video. Good luck, sounds like a helluva challenge!

Hey Joey, great to see you on the boards. It really depends on your budget. If you're going for lower budget HD, I've had a lot of success with the JVC-HD100U. It's got TC Sync, and is 720p HD. It's got high compression through MPEG-2 HDV tape-based workflow, but not really noticeable if you're just outing to DVD or broadcast. It's now an "older" technology camera, though, so you can probably pick up a good amount of them for cheap. If you have a bit more money, I'm loving a LOT on the EX-1 and EX-3. Beautiful stuff -- comparable image quality, color replication, and dynamic range to Red in some circumstances, but not all -- and a tapeless workflow to boot. Works wonderfully in low-light, too. Above that, well, there's Red, but I know you know that stuff. I enjoyed recently operating the HPX-3700. It was broadcast quality 24p HD, and a damn expensive camera, but had all of the manual functions to make it work really well, and was ergonomically great. Although, I just remembered it has a B&W viewfinder, which would suck for low-light work, so grab an alternate viewfinder or use its flip-out LCD screen. Take care man, we're going to conquer the world when you come on out here.

Flashes from studio strobes work okay and are probably cheaper to rent than lightning strikes (check them with the flash setting of your meter before you get on set, to be sure you're right), you can even get away with flashes from a bulb on a DSLR if it's a closeup. However, you probably can't get a good result from the dimmers and gear you listed. I'm cutting a project right now that tried it for gunshots, and the result was so weak that I had to go into After Effects and create an entirely new flash effect in post. Good luck!

Yup, and an easy formula too. You'll have 400 footcandles. One stop up is a doubling of footcandles. One stop down is a halving of footcandles. Another easy and useful footcandle formula is to take your film stock's speed and divide it into 10,000. It will give you how many footcandles you'll need to expose properly at a T2.8. Example: You're shooting 5219/7219. Your ASA is 500. 10,000/500 = 20. You need 20 footcandles to expose a subject properly at a T2.8. Enjoy!

A good high-end Mag-lite reads in haze well -- smoke, not quite so much. To eye, it reads great in smoke, but it's really illusory, and you don't get exactly the same effect on film.

Looks incredible. Maybe I will saunter on over to the Laemmle pretty soon. Aaron

Nathan is a friend of mine and went to the same film school, and I think he's truly awesome. A big congratulations.