Jim Hyslop

Of course, that's nothing new - in 1985 the CBC made a mockumentary about Canadians infiltrating the U.S. entertainment industry, called The Canadian Conspiracy. The conspiracy goes all the way back to Mary Pickford :-) -- Jim

Thanks for the correction. I should have double-checked the manual before posting.

Quite possibly. It may have to do with tax credits - Canadian productions can get a larger tax credit than non-Canadian productions, and to qualify as a "Canadian production" most of the "Creative Services" positions (Director, Writer, the highest and second-highest paid lead actors, DP, Art Director, Music composer and editor) must be filled by Canadians. The Gov't of Canada web site outlining the rules is here

What about placing a mirror in front of the child's face, and shooting into that? You can flip the image to its correct orientation in post.

Ah, that makes sense, and fits the context of the article. Thanks for the nudge in the right direction. And about the eyeballs popping out - sounds like one of the myths tackled by Mythbusters! -- Jim

Well, that's my take on it too, but if you're using timecode to sync, then you have to use the same tc rate for both the camera and the recorder, right? -- Jim

OK, so I just watched the video - the guys didn't say the results all looked the same, they said the results all looked good. -- Jim

I think it's a combination of the bow's shadow on her left cheek, and she appears to be farther away from the film camera. -- Jim

In the February issue of American Cinematographer, the "Production Slate" section covers the movie "The International." Cinematographer Frank Griebe is quoted as saying "Probably half the shots in the movie are effects shots, but it's the kind of film where you don't want the audience to notice them." Which got me to thinking - what "kind of film" is there, where you do want the audience to notice the effects shots? It seems to me the answer is "None, except perhaps a documentary about effects shots." As soon as the audience notices an effects shot, they're pulled out of the story. I think this holds true for all movies, even movies that are extremely effects-heavy. I remember seeing the first Star Wars movie in theatres in 1977 (back when it was just "Star Wars" - no episode numbering yet). In the opening sequence, with the star background etc., of course I noticed the effects shots, and thought how cool the effects were. But then the story started, and the rebel ship flew past, followed by the immense Imperial Star Destroyer. My thoughts as the Star Destroyer came by were not "Wow, what a great effects shot," but rather "Oh my God, that thing is HUGE!" (I actually shrank down in my seat :-) In other words, the opening title sequence let me admire the effects shots for being good effects. But that also established effects as being part of the story. After that, no matter how "flashy" the effect, I did not notice the effect as an effect, but rather as part of the story. Obviously, the effects shot I mentioned did have an impact on me, since I can clearly remember that moment over 30 years later, but I did not notice them as effects shots. On the other hand, in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, released one year later, the effects sequences of the Enterprise being drawn through V'ger were so long and drawn out (15 minutes of nothing but the ship travelling through V'ger, if memory serves correctly) that I wanted to scream "OK, enough of the effects already, let's get on with the story." So, the bottom line, it seems to me, is: there is NO "kind of film" where you want the audience to notice effects shots as effects shots. Thoughts? Comments?

We need more information about your workflow before we can answer completely. How will you be syncing: via timecode or by sticks? If by timecode, how do you plan to sync the camera and recorder? What is the destination format: film? video (SD or HD)? This does have a big impact on your workflow. I haven't worked with the Canon, but I've worked with the Sony EX1 and Panasonic HVX200. Both of these cameras record 60 fps drop-frame, which works out to an actual frame rate of 59.94. The 30 or 24 frame rates are achieved by skipping selected frames. I would guess that the Canon works similarly, but I could very well be wrong (and, on re-reading Chris's post, I strongly suspect the Canon does work differently). Push your producer to get the post production lined up ASAP yesterday. You cannot answer these questions in a vacuum - you need the editor's input. If your producer balks, then point out that any guessing you make at this point could end up doubling or tripling the amount of time (and therefore expenses) required in post. And, as Brian suggested, make sure you test the workflow to ensure things work the way you expect. Another resource you can use for audio questions is the Usenet group rec.arts.movies.production.sound - a lot of very knowledgeable sound people hang out there, and they know all about the sync issues. Also keep in mind that FC4 Express is ancient, in terms of software. I shot a small doc recently on the EX1, and the editor has FC4 Express. The only way we could ingest the material was to use a Macbook Pro with the latest FC suite installed to capture the clips, then render all the clips out to an NTSC miniDV. The editor then ingested the miniDV tape. Obviously, there's a huge loss in quality, so her edit will be considered an offline edit.

I love when things like that happen - you end up with magic. I have a background in theatre, and I was involved in a production of "Fiddler on the Roof" where the director, choreographer and music director pushed each other in that way, and the result was one of the most beautiful productions I've ever seen.

Cool stuff. I hope you'll pardon what may sound like silly questions. First, what's "dicifix"? I browsed through the photo album (hope you don't mind :-). In photo #36, why do you have something wrapped around the eyepiece? Is it to protect the viewfinder from the sun? I like the silhouette shot of the camera - very cool!

Greg, thanks for sharing that experience. Sounds like it was simultaneously really fun and really terrifying! It also sounds like Jerry is worth his weight in gold. You mention a crew of 45, and 30 cameras. How did that break down in terms of how many people worked on each camera? Was it one operator per camera, with two operators sharing one assistant?

Did anyone reply privately to you on this? If so, I'd be interested in hearing what they had to say.

That attitude is not limited to graduates of film schools. I have seen it in several different disciplines. I think what it boils down to is that when students graduate, think they have learned everything they need to know to step into a senior position. What they don't realize... actually, to put blame/responsibility where it really belongs: what the schools fail to teach them, is that everything they have learned at school is just the foundation of their career work. There are a LOT of fine, subtle nuances that simply cannot be taught effectively at school - you have to learn them with on-the-job experience. Unless you want to go to school for eight or ten years - like a doctor does. There will, of course, be the rare individual who grasps the subtle nuances instinctively, and will be ready to be DP right after graduating (or even before graduating). But for the rest of us, that learning comes through on-the-job experience, which can be gained through several paths - grip, electrics, camera.

Sorry to pick on such a small part of an otherwise excellent explanation, but wattage measures how much electricity the lamp uses - nothing more, nothing less. "650 watts" means that the lamp will draw approximately 5.4 amps at 120 volts. Just as there are many factors that affect the photometrics of a fixture, there are many factors that affect the brightness of a lamp, and wattage - or, more precisely, current draw - is only one of those factors. Higher wattage lamps generally give off more light than lower wattage lamps, but you cannot categorically state that two lamps of the same wattage will emit the same amount of light. For example, this comparison chart shows that BTL and BTM lamps are both rated at 500W, but the BTL puts out 11,000 lumens whereas the BTM puts out 13,000 lumens. All of this just goes to show that you can't light by numbers alone - it requires experience with the various fixtures to understand what you're actually going to see (and that's what cinematography's all about, isn't it? :-)

Even that's not reliable, since many ISPs assign IP addresses dynamically. Also, if the offender logs in from different locations (such as public libraries, or publicly-accessible wifi hotspots in coffee shops) there would be no consistency in the IP address at all.

That could work. Another very effective technique would be to cut away to a reaction shot of a bystander - either someone actually seeing the event, or someone who hears the noise and turns to see what happened. Do not underestimate the power of good sound effects combined with the viewers' imaginations!

Have you listened to the recording? I mean really listened, and analyzed what was being said and what was going on? Y'know, if Bale was a nobody in a regular workplace, and made the same outburst, he would be out of work and facing assault charges. You can clearly hear at one point in the audio that he is chasing after Hurlbut. That meets the definition of assault, even if he never actually touched Hurlbut. Yes, outbursts happen on set, but Bale's reaction was far more than a simple outburst. Like the Energizer bunny, he kept going and going, belittling and embarrassing Hurlbut for his mistake, even after Hurlbut tried to apologize several times and explain why he was moving around. I don't care what Hurlbut did (or didn't do), nobody deserves to be treated like that. And what exactly did Hurlbut do? The link you posted was a rehash of a second-hand account, related several months after the incident, and as such must be taken with a grain of salt. When you get down to it, the only accurate information available to us is the audio clip, and even that's incomplete because it starts in the middle of the tirade. We keep reading that "Hurlbut walked on set and tweaked a light while shooting." Nowhere in the audio clip do either of them talk about Hurlbut actually walking on set, or actually adjusting lights. If you listen closely, you can clearly hear Bale saying that Hurlbut was "moving around in the background" - that does not necessarily mean he was on the set. It could easily mean he was moving around behind the camera, probably in Bale's eyeline (which I think we've all acknowledged is a gross violation of set etiquette). Even the director said "I didn't see anything," so Hurlbut was certainly not on-camera. When Bale pressed Hurlbut for an explanation of what he was doing, Hurlbut said "I was looking at the lights." LOOKING at - not adjusting. If he had been adjusting the lights, I'm sure Bale would have said something about him "f**ing with the lights", not "moving around in the background." Bottom line is, it sounds like whatever Hurlbut did, it's been blown out of proportion. If he was moving around within Bale's eyeline or adjusting lights, then he certainly deserved to be chewed out, but not to the extent that actually happened. At least, that's this Monday-morning quarterback's view of things. Actually, the real bottom line is that we are all playing "Monday-morning quarterback" here, and really should refrain from offering any further opinions if we weren't actually on set and witnessed what happened. Can we drop this now, and get back to making films and discussing cinematography? -- Jim

Love it! With all the technology available to us, we sometimes forget that sometimes the simplest and most effective solution is the most low-tech possible.

To sort of echo Tim, get VERY squeaky VERY quickly. And to echo Walter, it smells very much like BS to me. Vendors do not remit payments, they submit invoices. Even if the "Accounts Department" (side note - is that how they signed it, or did you change the name to protect the, um, innocent?).... uh, where was I? Oh, yeah. Even if they meant "submitting invoices" yours was in the queue well before the first quarter began, so it should have priority. Sounds to me like the company is having serious financial problems, and may not be around at the end of the month. You might want to drop by in person, and try to get straight answers about their financial situation. -- Jim

Ummmm... actually it was Michele who started this thread.

Actually, there is one other extremely important consideration: condensation. When you're done and bring the camera back inside, make sure you allow plenty of time for the camera to come up to room temperature before opening the magazine to offload the film or remove the lenses (or lens cap). -- Jim

This was discussed a few weeks back (here is the thread). I think you'll be fine. I was 2AC on a shoot that was around 20 degrees, and we took no special precautions. The main thing is to keep the batteries warm - the cold will kill them very quickly. See the thread for other tips. -- Jim

Google "free time timecode calculator" and you'll find several applications which will help. I use Peter Gray's "Free Time" calculator. (By the way, that's Peter D. Gray, a software developer, not the cinematographer Peter Gray, ASC).