Nikita K Carpenter Jr

Just finished a project on the SRII, and was looking to hh the matte box but was stuck with bum support rods. I've tried other bodies and they all seem to wiggle a little too much for comfort. Does anyone have any tricks to keep the rods in place while still being released as if from a finger tight hold?

Just recently started a shoot with it the the footage is looking nice. The low light qualities aren't what I am used to working with, but it certainly got the job done. It's also a weird body to work with because this was my first shoot working with it. Adding a Cine Package to it really helps. Has anyone used it or have any tricks they'd like to share about it? Cheers.

Terrific find! I've been looking for something like this everywhere.

P.S. Gave the speech today. I boiled the points down to content, cost, and quality. It went well! I even brought in some of my short ends to drive the point home. Thanks for the feedback, everyone!

I just recently received some 16mm short ends. The stocks are all Vision2 at 7201 50D, 7205 250D, and 7229 500T. I'm looking to get my hands on an SRII and test them out. Do anyone has any suggestions for what I'd be looking for as far as the nuances between the stocks? What type of tests should I perform to get the most out of the tests?

Thanks a ton, Chris. The advice was great.

I'm also throwing the word "support" out of my argument :lol:

Thanks for the responses. I'm definitely scraping the first point. I'm still in the early stages of argument development so I wasn't sure if I should go for that point or not. Now, I know I'll just leave it alone. I was asking around if anyone really cared how there movies were made and most people said they didn't. As long as they saw a movie they thought was cool, they were good. David, I wasn't looking to put the two head to head per say. I'm definitely leaning more towards the point that film is still most definitely a viable option in acquisition. I feel like my original proposals disappointed you. I hope that wasn't the case. They were definitely meant to be critiqued as so, and the criticism is great As of now, I've broken my new arguments down to 1) on-set operations [using the suggestion about camera setups], 2) shooting ratios, and 3) image quality. Once I develop a draft of the speech, I'm going to post it so I can get some more feedback as to how successfully appealing I am to audiences as to not overlooking film and continual potential.

Being the avid film student that I am, I'm doing a speech in my speech class on why you should support movies shot on film as opposed to digitally. Now, my main points are that 1) moviegoers should be conscious of how they're content is create (jobs, commerce, etc.) , 2) the fact that the costs of processing and printing can be reduced if planned correctly, 3) you can still do cool in-camera effects on film and use film to create cool effects, and 4) film has more quality than images produce through digital acquisition. Now, personally, I'm more of a digital kind of person, seeing as I grew up shooting Hi8, S-VHS, MiniDV, DVCPRO, etc., but after shooting on film, I enjoy both mediums equally. I'd like to hear some feedback and see what you're opinions are. Counterarguments would be sweet! Thanks.

I'm sorry about that. I believe it might be the HDW-F900. I'm not sure if that's what we're going with or not, but if so, it wouldn't be bad to know a little about its nuances.

We're either using the HVX + Redrock or the CineAlta. I'm sure, almost positive, and probably correct that there's info for the redrock on here. If so, shoot it to me. If you have any quick tips for it or the CineAlta, that'd be great too. I've 1st ACed before, but not with those setups. I've mainly worked the EX1 + Letus. Thanks for any input!

Excellent. That helps a lot. Actually, it helps a ton. Thank you. Do you usually go in smaller groups or bigger ones?

When you go on one, what kinds of questions do you ask your director? gaffer? And I'd like to know oddly enough what you'd ask your Steadicam Op.

Digging it. It's got a nice gritty feel.

Shot on XHA1, lit with mostly daylight, some 150s and some worklights. It's basically a quick project I shot for someone and I'd like to know what you thought of it. Logline: Guy sees visions via contact with other people. Enjoy. http://vimeo.com/3654680

Most definitely. I'll give you an example of what I mean. I had to shoot a typical film noir last week. It was so cliche, but that's how the director wanted it. Once I went along with how she saw it, I fell in love with using one light though because that prompted the actors to work around how they use that lighting in the scene to fuel what they do on camera. It was fun to capture. There was a scene where I had one 600 on a Mafer high on a wall to light about seven or eight angles and it was golden provided I swung a barn door open or closed a little.

Single Source Lighting is one of my favorite ways to light. It's so simple, yet effective. It doesn't have to be a hard fresnel either. I was on a shoot a few weeks ago where we had a huge homemade soft box that was around 1.2K and it looked epic! Larger sources than that look fantastic too. We have a 6K bounced off of a 6x muslin and I couldn't believe how awesome it gave our set some ambience. What do you think? Does it suit your need most of the time, or no (and it doesn't mean not being able to add eye lights or other small stuff)?

What are they? I shoot to projects on it at my college. I wanted to try it out and I found it interesting because of the HDV format and its 24F mode. I found that recording to miniDV gave me the same amount of grain as I would have if I shot on an SD camera with similar settings. What did I do wrong? I can try to grab some still frames to show you what I mean. There was no gain used and it was even evident in daylight situations where there was plenty of light to be had. I keep thinking that it's because of the codec, but I don't know much about it or the camera besides what I've learned on those two shoots. Any experts want to fill me in?

I do concur. I saw it earlier this evening and it gives that same feeling. I think it has to do with the successful transition between time periods. You get a chance to experience the environments the characters are in visually while not forgetting the action going on at hand. In my opinion, it views like a novel, truly putting most of what you imagine on screen, especially when you don't know exactly how the adaptation will portray the next scene.

Sad day. That exit sign idea has potential though. Throw one of those bad boys up there and you'd be able to cheat a fill with a red gel, granted the exit sign you use is red. A green one could work too if it gives off the feeling of whatever scene you're shooting.

Adrian, I'd say that if there's a door or several in the hallway to light the rooms that the doors lead to so that you have some spill that comes out of there that mimicks light coming from outside of the building. You'd probably get some what of a silhouette effect on your subjects.

That couldn't be more true. What's really convenient is when you have more lights than you need and you're able to cut it down to really help compose a shot. I'd assume you'll be looking to add some of that new LED Lite Panels technology to your inventory.

Geez! I couldn't even think about 36 Kilowatts of lighting just yet. I just checked "Jennifer's Body" out and it looks intense. Did you have any tricky lighting situations with your interiors?

First Post on Cinematography.com! In high school, I shot a music video with only one light in two interiors and one exteriors--a 500w Lowel Omni. When we started, I didn't think I could, but by bouncing it around I got some pretty good exposure on my subject all around. I even put it through a cookie and had enough light to bounce back onto my subjects in a small, dark room. Here's my question: What's the biggest stretch you've had to make to light a scene with a limited amount of equipment that you've had?