Jim Hyslop

Murphy's Law dictates that you will forget it on the day you absolutely need it :-)

The October 08 issue of American Cinematographer featured footage shot for the latest Need for Speed game. One trick the cinematographer used to figure out where to put lights was to use a laser pointer. He'd figure out where he wanted the highlight to appear on the car, then from the camera's position he shone the laser at that point, and then put a light where the laser bounced off.

Your instructor is only partly right (or perhaps you have misunderstood him). Yes, the shutter is a door, but that door does have a direct effect on blur. The longer you hold the door open, the more blur there will be. To reduce blur, you need to reduce the amount of time the door is open (i.e. increase the shutter speed). As David Mullen points out, shutter speed is a function of both shutter angle and frame rate. The formula is quite simple: shutter angle shutter speed = ------------------ 360 x frame rate Therefore, there are two ways to increase shutter speed, and thereby reduce blur: increase the frame rate (which seems to be what your friend and your instructor are both saying), or to decrease the shutter angle. Assuming a shutter angle of 180 degrees, 200fps will result in a shutter speed of 1/400 second, which will certainly reduce or even eliminate blur. However, since you are running the film through the camera approximately 8 times faster than normal, it will also result in extreme slow motion - an object which would take one second to cross the frame while filming, will take approximately 8 seconds when projected. You may not necessarily want that effect. You should be able to return the shot to normal speed in post, by printing every 8th frame. Shooting the same subject at 24fps, but reducing the shutter angle to 22 degrees, will also result in a shutter speed of 1/400 second. As Stephen has pointed out, not all cameras have an adjustable shutter. If yours doesn't, then you'll have to figure out which is cheaper for those shots - renting a camera with an adjustable shutter, or shooting 8 times as much film and any extra post production expenses. -- Jim

The chart assumes 24fps - the formula takes frame rate into account. -- Jim

You could write out Jason's table, or you could memorize this formula, which will hold true for all cameras and all light meters: shutter angle shutter speed = ----------------- 360 x fps If you plug 24fps and a shutter angle of 150 degrees into the formula, your calculator will tell you 0.0173611111111. Hit the "1/x" button and you get 57.6 - the shutter speed is 1/57.6 second, or approx. 1/60. Or, to go straight to the "60" just flip the formula over: 360 x fps ----------------- shutter angle 360 * 24 / 150 = 57.6, which rounds to 60. -- Jim

Make sure you also say why you are a perfect fit - nothing turns me off a cover letter faster than someone saying "I am a perfect fit for your company" without backing it up. -- Jim

I'm not Walter (obviously :-) and I don't know that many NY subway movies, but I really liked "The Taking of Pelham 123". -- Jim

There are two ways to do this. The one I find easier is the "Timing" feature in Motion - it's on the "Properties" tab of the Inspector. Within FCP itself, there's the time remap function, on the "Motion" tab in the Viewer. Neither one is particularly easy to use - you'll have to work with them a bit to figure out how they work. -- Jim

Yes, I was the producer. No thanks, I think I'll stick to cinematography and let someone else handle the headaches :-) -- Jim

Well, I have to admit that was almost twenty years ago. From what I've seen, the industry hasn't changed that much, except the low-paid PAs are now not paid at all and are called "interns". Anyway, the films were "Thunderground" and "Murder One". Not yet as an indie. I've worked with ACTRA on a student film, and had no problems whatsoever - other than sending me the ACTRA registration number, they pretty much ignored me. This was about six months ago. Just as an aside - some of you may be wondering how I worked as a PA twenty years ago and am still a student. I took a detour into software development, and recently realized that was a mistake, so now I'm working on getting back into the film business. -- Jim

I have worked on non-union films. I was working as a PA for $150/week - flat rate, no overtime, and required to work 60-70 hours per week (including at least one drive from Toronto to Windsor - about 350 km - *after* working a full 12 hour day). And then they announced that for the next feature, they were going to REDUCE the PAs' wages to $100/week. I didn't stick around. The production companies were quite clearly violating the labour laws, but got away with it. Why? If I had to guess, it's because there is no shortage of people who want to break into "the biz" so badly they are willing to put up with the s**t to gain the experience. If you complained, you'd probably be fired. I firmly believe that IATSE, NABET, SAG, AFTRA, ACTRA, AEA, CAEA and all the other entertainment-related unions are still necessary. I am not so sure about other unions. -- Jim

Keep in mind that I'm not an experienced producer, but I have learned the following from my various production courses at Ryerson University: Basically, you want to keep a record of anything that proves you have permission to use the images and sounds that are in your production and in any behind-the-scenes stills, videos, etc. "Release forms" should include not only talent releases but location releases, deal memos, etc. Don't forget any copyright clearances for music, any brand names that are visible (presumably that's not a problem for a commercial), any copyrighted works that may be seen (which includes things like the light display on the Eiffel Tower at night!!). Once the production has wrapped, I don't think emergency contact info is necessary. When disposing of personal information, I'd use a shredder to make sure the personal information can't accidentally fall into someone else's hands. You should keep the binder for as long as the product is commercially viable - you never know when a network or distributor will ask to see the releases, or if someone who's in your production decides to sue. -- Jim

Is there a formula to calculate the safe window?

True, it's not a gross violation of the rule, and with all the crossings of the axes that you see in TV today it's much less jarring on the audience than it used to be. But, I feel it's important to learn and understand the conventions before trying to break them. -- Jim

As many as it takes to tell the story - no more, no less. Of course there is an average, just like there is an average height for a human being. But in both cases trying to apply the average to an individual is pretty meaningless. -- Jim

Costuming and colour choices can help a lot. Instead of a white blouse with a pink scarf and pink skirt, you might choose a more drab combination of greys or browns for her wardrobe. You might also consider playing with the colour correction - maybe desaturate the image a little, up until she meets Mike, then add more colour. Acting can help too. When Angelique first entered, she was far too chipper - she looked content and happy. If her life is that boring, why is she smiling? I like the bike ride - despite it being a windy day, her hair was pretty much locked in place. That also adds to the boring nature of her character. Yes, I know you said her life is boring, but an interesting character would not lead a boring life. Since her life is boring, she - by extension - is a boring character. That presents you with an additional challenge - how to take this boring character and make the audience like her. One way is for the character to recognize there's a problem with her life, and want to change it. You did that in the dialog, although it was a what my screenwriting instructor would have called "on the nose" by having her come right out and say it (you usually try to avoid being "on the nose"). I didn't realize until looking closely - and pausing the video - that the books she's reading are all self-help books aimed at changing her life. You might want to have found a way to work that in a little more prominently at the beginning. It took me a moment to figure out that the shots of her reading the book and the cat playing with the clock were flashbacks. One big clue about the time shift would have been a difference in lighting - as it was, the two scenes were lit pretty much identically. I couldn't make out what the neighbour was doing - was that deliberate? How did that trigger her thought to "look for the signs?" At the park, I found the fade to black and subsequent fade-in to her entering the washroom a little odd. Normally, fades are used to signify a change in location or time, but in that sequence neither really changed. Was there a particular reason for inserting a fade to black there? Watch the 180 degree rule. In the sequence with the married man, for the first two shots he's waving camera left, and Angelique is looking camera right. When she crosses the street, she's moving from camera left to camera right. For the two-shot, though, you crossed the axis: he was waving camera right, and Angelique moved from camera right to camera left. For the shot to match properly, he should have continued to wave camera left, and she should have entered from camera left. The positions they end up in match correctly, as does the shot where his wife joins them. I'd echo Chad's advice about dolly shots. In particular, the shot where you zoom in on the, um, prophet would work better as a dolly shot, IMO. Nice ending to that scene, by the way. The collision was a little too close to the edge of the frame for my liking - I'd have tried to frame it more in the centre. It's probably just personal preference, but when she wakes up I'd cut one of two things: either lose the trying-to-focus bit (it's almost cliche), or lose the shot immediately before that and have Mike look directly into the camera when it's out of focus. Were you the only crew member? I didn't see anyone else listed in the credits. I've mentioned a lot of little things here. That doesn't mean I think your film is bad - far from it. On the whole, I liked it and there's a lot of promise there. And remember, most of this is simply my opinion - whether you choose to accept any of it is up to you :-)

Oh, I know that - I come from a live theatre background. I remember stage managing one show, and I basically had to know the script inside out because the lead actress would jump all over the place. Besides, I did say I was playing Devil's Advocate :-) Sounds interesting - maybe you should start writing them down. Might make a good basis for a book, or blog, or at the very least an evening recounting "war stories" at the bar. -- Jim

Google is your friend - a search of "kino flo flicker" quickly led me to Kino Flo's faq, part of which says "Kino Flo ballasts are designed to be flicker free at any shutter speed." -- Jim

I don't see a resurgence in 4:3 (no particular basis for that, other than gut feel). No, I think the next "gimmick" will be 3-D - look how much of that is happening now.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here: in live theatre, you quite often have 10 minutes, 20 minutes, or more of complicated dialog and action, and you do not get a second take in live theatre. Why can't actors do that for film?

Most laptops aren't designed to accept external video inputs. You would need to buy a video input card (most likely something that fits in your laptop's PCMCIA slot, or perhaps connects to your laptop via firewire). Make sure the card (a) works with your laptop, and ( b ) accepts a composite video input. Then you would need to have some software that would allow you to do your chroma key in real-time. I'm afraid I don't have any specific recommendations on either of those. If it were me, I'd run a test anyway, whether I was using the laptop or a monitor. I prefer to know exactly how my viewfinder and the external monitor (laptop or other) compare to what's actually being recorded. If you have a focusing chart, frame it up so that it just fills the viewfinder, then record and review the results. If you don't have a focusing chart, tape on a wall would work just fine for that test - point the camera at a wall, then place tape marks on the wall just at the edge of the viewfinder. Probably be easier with someone to help you :-)

Yeah, I agree on both points. The make-up in the intermediate stages just looked to me like smudges, and there should have been more sagging of the cheeks (gravity does take its toll, y'know). On the whole, though, very well done. -- Jim

Mixed. I really don't see the point - mostly, I guess, because I have yet to see a 3-D movie that didn't use the third dimension gratuitously, as you mention. On the other hand, your argument about art form vs. imitation of reality kind of reminds me of the old colour vs. black and white arguments of yesteryear. And look where b&w is now :-) I have a feeling the 3D craze will get a lot worse (in terms of gratuitousness) before much if any kind of art emerges from it. But I also have a sneaky feeling it's not going to go away, either. I think the next logical step would be to have virtual reality 3D, where you are part of the action.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense now. Except.... if the practice has died down, how come it's still mentioned in the latest American Cinematographer Manual? Guess that's more a question for the editors of the manual, though :-)

Thanks for the reply, Simon. I'm not sure I quite follow you. Let me quote one of the places the term is mentioned. The section of the article is listing the disadvantages of shooting 1.85:1 on 35mm film: "3. Photographic opticals (dissolves, repositions, etc.) tend to be grainier than anamorphic 2.40. However, when created digitally or within the Digital Intermediate process, opticals will appear seamless. "Another technique is for editors to order 'double IP' opticals, compensating for the smaller negative area of 1.85. This improves the quality of photographic opticals, but at greater expense." Could "double IP" in this context mean "double-size", i.e. using 65mm film for the interpositive? Oh, I just thought of something. It seems to me there are two places in the workflow where the optical effects can be done: from the camera original negatives onto a single interpositive, or from two interpositives onto the internegative. Maybe the first one is the standard procedure, but the "double IP" opticals would use the second technique. Although I don't see how that would improve the quality of the opticals. Grasping at straws here!