Daniel Moore

First project is PSA, btw...

Looking for Producer to make things happen. While budgeting is great, the real attributes we need are someone who can think critically, with smarts, incredible resourcefulness, good in business, intelligence, someone VERY familiar with protocol and knows where/how to get what we need- a hardcore left-brain person with dignity :) Must be based in Los Angeles. Please send resumes/links to awakenedone3@gmail.com Thanks!

There are so many magazines on film and cinematography, but they obviously don't discuss the same subjects. I just bought a copy of American Cinematographer and I am wondering if anyone recommends it, or if anyone could recommend another magazine....? If you could also give me some summaries of what each magazine discusses that would be great.

Let me know what you think. I believe I'm ready to direct commercials....do you all think I'm ready? Here are the website and Youtube links in case one works better than the other: Just copy and paste this one: www.fluideyefilms.com/july_09_DANNY-Cbas-web.mov

Anyone know where I can find scripts so I can compare them to the finished film?

Anyone know how I can obtain copies of scripts so that I can compare them to the final movie footage? They don't have to be physical, they can be PDFs or whatever. I was able to download Munich by doing a Google search, but I was hoping someone might know of a more official/reliable source that has ALL scripts. For example, the scripts for The Terminal and for Catch Me if you Can looked like someone had lazily typed them up without script format just for the internet. I want more official stuff. Anyone?

This is kind of an odd balance of needs. The crew is very small, and what we would need is a smooth operator/wheeler and dealer. I don't care too much about budgeting. If you can find good deals, then great. We don't need a whole crew to be assembled, I just have a few unique dilemmas that I think only a smart producer would know how to solve. Pretty much, what I need is to shoot on a street(found the location already), and I'm shooting a scene with a tow truck. For this, it's complicated because the driver would probably have to be a stunt driver, or perhaps the fact that I wouldn't know how to get a tow truck in the first place, and if I could then the driver would have to act......its complicated eh?. So that's pretty much the only reason I would need a producer. This production is probono unless we get a bigger budget soon, and hopefully if the collaboration is good we cna work together more in the future. Its tough though because so many people want money. I could buy people meals. Suggestions, opinions, applicants?

Yep. Any filming of the real Vatican had to have been for pre-production reference. The Vatican wouldn't let the crew film there in Italy, so the crew actually re-created the Vatican to scale in an enormous empty sports arena parking lot in Inglewood, CA. A lot of it was built, and then later on they took large parts away and replaced the empty spaces with fifty foot high green screen walls for the digital post effects. It looked amazing.

Yeah, Amundson did do Tranformers, but he must have also done The Island, Transformers 2, and a bunch of commercials, because the lighting/esthetic of all the footage I've seen has that DP's touch, as opposed to Bad Boys II which to my memory didn't have any particular stylism that stood out to me.

First, Micheal Bay's DP has a very unique aesthetic, to the point where I know its a Bay film within seconds of watching the footage. I think the guy's name is Mitchel someone. I love his esthetic. What does he do that makes his work, well, his work. What might he do that other DPs don't do? Next, I look at Kaminsky's work, like The Terminal, Munich, and Catch me if You Can, and he's using the same lighting arrangements for all of them it looks like. How would you describe that? What does he do differently than other DPs? I noticed he uses a lot of Key and Fill, and there doesn't seem to be too much depth in the shots. Third, Roger Deakins- his work just looks "golden" and warm to me. Maybe he uses a lot of gold bounces? How would you describe his techniques? Thanks. Note- whenever I think about ways to articulate cinematography, mostly the basics and my own jargon come to mind, for example, "heavenly" would be aperature is opened a lot so you get that high key blasting white light, but I know there's also a lot of technical stuff involved that I don't know, and I also don't know how much technical info is necessary to articulate a visual style.

What is DI? I think I am correct in saying it means "Digital" something....but if someone could really elaborate on it, like explain what it is, when it's needed(or if it's preference rather than necessity), and give me some movie names that have DI so that I can have some reference, I would appreciate it. I have actually been told that the movie A Very Long Engagement had a ton of DI, so I should watch that again, but any other examples would be great. Thanks.

Wow great responses from everyone. That makes complete sense about directing the eye. I remember the conference table scene where Daniel Craig apologizes, and as the other men leave the room as the camera moves closer to him, his face and also his shirt are very white, almost "glowing"....and it definitely directed my eyes. It actually reminded me of how a "black light" works. I also agree, lighting doesn't have to be "natural", but, when I thought about how the exterior lighting in the locations seemed to me to be very undirected soft light, and then I see an interior shot where the character's seem to have unexpected highlights, that to me seems contradictory to the exterior visuals. Interesting point about "suspension of disbelief" too. I guess I can say, from a technique based perspective, I can appreciate Road to Perdition more now. Thanks for the responses.

I was watching Road to Perdition, and the lighting seemed unrealistic to me. There were several scenes, mostly where the scenes had dim rooms, and the characters had soft but bright light projected onto their faces. It seemed almost as if ambient light was the key light, and not only that but that it didn't seem to be motivated by anything.... There was also a scene where it was raining outside a window, and there was that interesting effect where you see the shadows of the rain projected into the room from the light behind it....although, has anyone actually seen rain do that in reality? I'm not sure I have, although it seems possible. I'm wondering if it's a style of direction/lighting that is used to be cinematic regardless of it's realism. Anyone seen this movie lately or remember it?

I never saw The Thin Red Line, but I will look into that. It's interesting that you referred to news footage as looking grainy(and shot on 16mm). When I imagine news footage, I think of modern clear high resolution video tape that's aired on television with the camera being held steady(as with live reports). I would not have imagined "grainy" and "news" in the same sentence. I do find your examples of the two catagories emulating each other amusing hahahah. I do agree too, based on what you said, both catagories are probably going to look bad.

Hmmm, well, what makes you say "bad"? When I looked at the lighting, I felt like I was actually at the airport(which was probably the intention). When you say "polished", I'm assuming you mean "Hollywood" looking. When I think "polished", I think of a scene that is perceivably lit to please the audience rather than show mood or less common style. I thought the beginning of United 93 was somewhat polished, like all those nice moody orange tones(the close up on the guy's hands holding the book, and the other hotel room shots). In the airport shots I noticed a lot of direct key lighting(I'm guessing completely natural) creating white areas on the film(which doesn't really seem like it fits "polished" to me, but the lighting definitely looked powerful to me)

This movie, United 93, fascinates me. I was just watching some of it. The beginning has amazing low key scenes....really nice orange tones in my opinion. Although, the rest of the movie is suddenly extremely high key, and I think that high key looks REALLY good considering the movie was shot like a documentary. I was trying to analyze the execution of the way the movie was shot, and I was thinking first about format- I'm guessing it was shot on 35mm, but correct me if I'm wrong.....the strong documentary style made it difficult for me to recognize the format because it was so different to standard Hollywood movies. The camera had a lot of free hand held movement, and it didn't seem like any lights were rigged up. The lighting seemed really natural....and at the same time very high key, so I thought maybe the camera's exposures were just very large to let in more of the natural light that was availabe. Anyone seen this movie who can give me their insight?

I wasn't technically thinking home "videos".....that's just the generic label I gave it. I knew the scene in Hollywoodland must have been shot on film. Although, thanks to both of you for your information, that's interesting.

What about those silver and gold bounces(someone told me they're nicknamed Elvis and Liberace)? I was told the gold is for soft bounce and the silver is for stronger bounce.....I've also seen "checkerboard" bounces on frames. Do those two bounces fit into what you're talking about?

Hmmm, well in that case, it seems like there could in some cases be no lighting function names at all. If I light a scene with all candles as practicals, there would be no back light, no fill light, but maybe you could consider the practicals to be the key lights because they are not only the primary source but the only source. It seems like all those function names are for when and/or if someone might use them to make describing a very average/basic lighting set up...like for an interview, but it seems to become more vague when I think of these functions being translated into movies.... Also, thank you Mr. Rakoczy for that book recommendation, I will check that out

Thanks guys, awesome responses. I thought things like car lights, and a lamp in the shot were considered "practicals"....? Also, now that I've read the responses and I think about that scene from The Terminal, it seems like the names of lighting functions are to an extent, semantics. Meaning, a light in the back of a scene is not necessarily a "Back" light just because it's in the back. It just turns into a debate about perception. That scene I described from the Terminal had all that light behind Tom Hanks and the other guy, but, I think to myself that maybe it was possible that although it was a light behind the actors, for all I know the DP could have intended to actually have the lighting aimed towards their faces be the key light? Unless, the strongest light in the shot(light from behind them) automatically becomes the key light because it's the strongest source....

I have some basic questions. If people could give me some replies that would be great. What's "motivated" light? What's a "Fill" light? What's a "Key" light? Is a "Back" light even necessary if you don't want a silhouette? I take it from what I have read that there are no official positions for the lights to be set up....so would the lighting names (Fill, Key, etc) not change based on their physical positioning? I was watching The Terminal(with Tom Hanks), and there's a scene where Tom Hanks is walking with whoever plays the security guard. They are walking down a hallway in the airport and there's a ton of light pouring in from giant windows behind them as they walk towards the camera(the camera is moving backwards as they walk forward). I think the light lit up the whole hallway, but both Tom Hanks and the other guy were completely lit in the scene- so because the light was behind them(which I don't know if it was real sunlight or a really huge set light), does that make it a "Back" light, or does it make it a "Key" light because it was the main source of light in the shot? I'm guessing it was also the only light, because if the camera was moving down the hallway for the shot, other lighting set ups would probably logically been on camera haha. If people could be elaborate that would be great. Thanks!

Hmm...this leads me to conclude that film is way more trustworthy than digital. If someone said they shot something with 24p, then that's like fifty percent of the equation...the other fifty percent being the camera. Whereas with film, like 35mm, I've seen crews shoot television commercials with several different looking cameras all with 35mm film, and regardless of the camera, it still comes out looking like a commercial. It seems like digital is really convenient in a lot of ways, but it seems like it also complicates things....

I'm trying to pinpoint the texture of Super 8 film. I was watching Hollywoodland(with Adrien Brody and Ben Affleck). There's a scene where we see P.O.V. through the lens of a camera as we watch the home videos(fake for the movie) of Ben Affleck's character while he's lifting his son around. I think that scene was in color. There's another scene where Ben Affleck is alone in frame goofing around, and then he signals the camera to cut(the P.O.V. camera in the movie). I'm wondering if anyone knows if either or both of those scenes were shot in Super 8(while the rest of the movie was in 35mm)....? I would guess because Super 8 was the standard home video film for that time period, and I'm assuming that was the director's and/or DP's intention for Hollywoodland...

I'm trying to pinpoint the texture of Super 8 film. I was watching Hollywoodland(with Adrien Brody and Ben Affleck). There's a scene where we see P.O.V. through the lense of a camera as we watch the home videos(fake for the movie) of Ben Affleck's character while he's lifting his son around. I think that scene was in color. There's another scene where Ben Affleck is alone in frame goofing around, and then he signals the camera to cut(the P.O.V. camera in the movie). I'm wondering if anyone knows if either or both of those scenes were shot in Super 8....?

What is a "workflow", and what does it mean when it becomes plural(workflows)?