Rob Webster

Hey Guys, Any of you guys who are UK based assistants/ technicians every used a diary service? I've heard some good things from a few colleagues who seem to be getting a good stream of well paid work through various different agencies, but I'm still sceptical. Any of you guys every signed up to one of these, or know what the deal is? Is it worth it? Any advice very welcome. Best, Rob

Sweet. Thanks for your help chaps.

Thanks for the advice fellas. I'm studying the guide and have booked a bit of time at the rental house while the kit is all being checked out to have a look at it all. On a related note, the DOP mentioned in passing today something about the 1st AC threading the film into the mag on switch overs. Surely this is the loader's responsibility? Should I take this as a slip of the tongue from the DP or is this a procedure that ANYONE has seen before? Seems odd to me. I assumed it was a mistake on his part. Thoughts?

Hey Guys, I have a gig as Clapper/Loader (thats English for 2nd AC) a music promo this weekend with the 435, and I've never used this particular camera before. Majority of my experience is with S16 (Sr2/3), Aaton and used 416 and Cameflex before too. Pick up I believe is the morning of the shoot, and we are shooting about 16 rolls (4 different stocks, mostly S/E I'm guessing), and have 4 400' mags; so it looks like we are going to be doing a lot of loading, unloading, shorting and re-cans. Does anyone have any tips, techniques about the loading procedure for this camera, specifically with how to thread the loop into the camera body itself? Anything that would help me streamline the process and keep everything organised? Much Obliged Chaps! Rob

It's good how a potentially useful discussion can get ruined by a COCK fight.

I'm pretty sure the new version of iMovie has a plug-in for that...

Sounds like a job for Stephen Levitt.

Hello Folks, I have an OSRAM 6000W HMI Bulb that was purchased for a spare on a recent shoot but never needed and I would quite like to get rid of it for a reasonable price as I have no need for it any more. I am to assume that the bulb was originally purchased by the production direct from Osram, but I can't find any information on the net about roughly how much it is worth or where I could sell it to. Does anyone have any idea approximately how much these are worth and whether I have any chance of finding somewhere to get rid of it in the UK? It is obviously brand new, never used, full warranty, in the box etc etc etc. Many thanks, Enjoy the good weather (those in the UK). Rob

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear: I did not intend the areas that were 3 stops under to be 'graded back up to proper exposure', or anything of the sort. these areas were simply the shadows of the picture. at roughly three stops under the set stop, my concern was at the fact that there was no detail in these areas. that's all. and my question was whether it was reasonable to believe that the grade may have contributed to that. Rob

Yes, I shot a greycard, naturally. The shot I posted as an example was exposed for the highlight, i.e. the flat background. The actor's stomach was one and half to two stops under. As I said, yes the negative is thin, but I'd expect detail even at three stops under, wouldn't you? The stock used in this instance was f64D, but even in scenes shot with the lower contrast 250T and exposed more towards a split, the issues are the same. It looks like the grader attempted to apply a distinctive look to the footage, and I wonder whether something like a technical grade would help to reveal the detail that's currently lost. Thanks for your time.

Hello, Watching the rushes from a short I recently shot (S16, TK to DigiBeta), I was troubled by just how deeply crushed the shadows were, and how abrupt the transition to black appeared. This caused a coarse, rather unattractive picture and, more significantly, a loss of important detail in the shadows. Now, I know that the low-key lighting, the high contrast of the stock and the intentional underexposure contributed to the sombre tone of it, but I can't help thinking that a more tactful grade would have saved some vital detail. It seems very unlikely to me that the actor's waist in the attached picture, for example, should be so completely black in open daylight, with the dynamic range of a modern stock. I would value a second opinion on the matter immensely, to assess whether a second transfer could potentially resolve any of these issues? Or am I just fooling myself? Many thanks for your time, Rob P.S. I'm having trouble uploading more than one pic, please let me know if it would be useful to upload a couple more in a new post...

How does it compare with Eterna 250D, specifically? Dynamic range and grain, as mentioned above, are a priority. Thanks again for your valuable input. Rob

Hello. How does Fuji's F-64D fare, in terms of grain, saturation and dynamic range, when compared with newer emulsions? I will be shooting day exteriors on a S16 short, and my main concern is to avoid excessive grain and colour saturation. I would be grateful for any observations you can share. Thank you, Rob

Hi Scott, The problem with shooting this on a real road with the actors actually driving the vehicle is that they are supposed to be driving the car (in the script) in an incredibly unsafe way. i.e. not looking where they are going, continually swapping seats etc. I'm thinking there would be no way to make this convincing and safe at the same time. The issue of wattage is the main reason for shooting studio. I have shot car interiors before in studio (on 7219) and used spinning light rigs (for windshield reflections), torches etc as well as miniflo tubes in the car to get enough stop to shoot 100FPS. We have a fairly big light store at uni so wattage shouldn't be a problem. Adrian, the idea of shooting the crash (or parts of it) in close up was an idea i had right before i read your post and i'm thinking this is a good way around it. Something along the lines of those super slo-mo shots from Hurt Locker (ignore the ridiculous editing here, but 0:44 on this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELplY9lKokw). Obviously we won't be able to go anywhere near that slow but that way we can shoot a master with the actors showing a split second of the collision, and then pick up a few details in close up. It has always been an issue for me that shooting this in slow motion means that it can only be done 100% practically and we simply don't have the budget to do it justice as a long take.

AS this is a student production we don't really have any people specialised in that area. Or at least not enough so to be put in the role of VFX supervisor. Any visual effects work will be a collaboration between myself and the editor (who will be doing any compositing/computer based effects) but as far as a stunt/vfx supervisor....not so much!

Hey Guys, On an upcoming project I have a total headache of a shot to achieve. It's the opening of the movie (we are shooting S16mm, 16:9, not decided on stock yet- probably 7219), with two guys speeding a car through a dark street (night). They are drunk and they are messing around, continually swapping seats and leaning out the windows/ not paying attention to the road etc. We want to shoot the whole thing as a two shot from in front of the windshield (something like this http://www.svpu.com/projects/LSCR2/thrufrontwindow.jpg ), in slow motion (approx 100FPS), showing the guys as they muck around in the car, untill...predictably....they crash the car, sending them flying and showered with glass. The idea is to create a kind of montage of the events before the crash, as they get more and more bold with their antics. Then the crash happens (from the same angle), as a slow motion long take, that shows the full destruction of the collision. The camera is facing BACK INTO THE CAR at all times, we never see the outside of the car. Two issues with this: 1) Before the crash, while they are just "driving" (mostly larking about) how do we shoot this?. It's unlikely we can afford a flatbed or a tow truck, so we will have to shoot studio, using blue/green screen or rear projection and shoot the background plate seperately. What seems like the best option? Essentially, all we will see in the background is through the rear window of the car- so we will get a bit of light on the road as it trails off behind them, and the occasional street light. 2) How do we shoot the crash? This is more of a difficult problem. Obviously we want the crash to look as realistic as possible and have glass (fake) flying everywhere. The camera cuts to titles mid-chaos. I'm pretty stumped for ideas on this. Obviously some sort of hydraulic car crash simulator would be good, but we don't have a million pounds. Any help, or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

I'm pretty sure "intelligently bewildered" is the slogan for my course as it happens.

And of course all opinions and information will be acknowledged properly

I'm not at all intending to draw any conclusions about whether DI performs better of worse than photochemical processing. My argument is more along the lines that the DI is a tool that should be used discerningly, and why it has its applications in certain scenario's and for certain people. Presenting contrasting opinions over the reality of "resolution" and "quality" will definitely help me, as i have not been able to do a digital intermediate on any of my films (film school budget doesn't quite stretch that far), hearing the experiences of those who have (even if they are more emotive responses about the "feel" of a DI print for example) is what i am interested in. Aside from all the data, there is an argument for and against the DI that is purely based on personal experience and preference, and i think these ideas are equally valid.

Thanks for the responses so far everyone, As cinematographer's then, what would you say the main reason for using a DI on a film would be? Resolution? (assuming we agree a digitally projected 4k print IS better than a s35 neg processed through IP/IN) Creative Controls? Replicating old stocks (i.e. the Rob Richardson's work on The Aviator, being able to replicate technicolor two and three strip); Colour Timing that would be IMPOSSIBLE in the lab (i.e. O' Brother Where art thou?), Saving time on set by flagging, finessing contrast in post, power windows, luma-keys etc Do you think there is a difference between "resolution" and "quality"? Deakins touches on this in his DI article, but do you feel that if a picture was finished chemically, and timed to match exactly with a DI (resolution difference is negligible), the chemical version would be better "quality"? I'm just interested to know whether the innate "quality" of having everything going through celluloid is (a) noticable and (B) desirable (in comparison to the digital intermediate route). Do you feel the DI will lead to the democratising of the cinematographers role? Thanks again for all your responses. Happy New Year, Rob

Hi Guys, I'm writing my final year dissertation on the benefits of DI to contemporary cinematography, and during my research i found a bit of a disagreement over resolution. Obviously with a traditional lab process there is huge loss of resolution between OCN, interpos, interneg, and eventually release prints (i've read up to 0.65 of original resolution). However, a 2K DI also looses resolution over 2 generations of duplicating- some estimates put release print resolution of 2k prints at closer to 1.4K, which is much less than a S35 negative duped chemically over 4 generations to print at approx 2.4K. So if S35mm film is approximately equal to 4K (again, this is disputed, Oliver Stapleton reckons its closer to 8k, Deakins rates 3K), then a 2K DI is roughly appropriate. Just wanted to see what people think on this issue. Firstly, what kind of resolution does everything think S35mm is equivalent to? What is an ideal resolution for DI (assuming no high res VFX are required). Obviously, this is purely academic and not really being used for testing or any practical work, so all opinions are welcome. Thanks everyone, and merry christmas Rob

Hi all, I am shooting a commercial on S16mm in a few weeks and we have shots where a man is chasing a spotlight around the set. We are using a 7 degree spot, and the set is a corridoor (just two parallel walls- no ceiling, approx 8-10 foot high), and we need to create the effect that the spot light is shining from directly above at all times (i.e. so the spot it makes on the floor is as close to perfectly circular as possible). We were thinking of hanging the spot from a scaff bar via barrel clamps, connected to two high rollers that would be wheeled up and down from OUTSIDE the set walls, but this would take an awful lot of coordination from whoever is moving the high rollers. We also have a small scaffolding tower at our disposal (approx 8ft). We are shooting in studio. Any suggestions guys? Thanks, Rob

Very much planned it so it would be in a black void. Much like the images in my post above. Obviously filming the actual sun would seem like the simplest option, but i like in the UK, it's winter- the sun is tiny, the sky is always grey, the zoom lens we use is awful and we can't afford a scan, so this is kind of a massive compromise for us. Thanks for the suggestion though guys!

Hi Guys, I'm shooting a commercial for Robinson's Fruit Squash as part of the European Kodak Commercials Competition. The idea is based around a pastiche of a perfume advert featuring a woman walking in silhouette towards camera, with a giant orange glowing orb behind her. She is silhouetted throughout her walk until she reaches a head and shoulders close up where there is some dialogue and a pack shot. Here are some images of roughly what we are trying to create (in terms of scale and effect, although we are looking for the orb to be more uniform than the still from "Sunshine", and not look quite so much like the actual sun) "Sunshine" DIR. Danny Boyle The Weather Project- TATE MODERN EXHIBIT We have come up with a number of ways of doing this: Practically We build some sort of huge light source in the studio at our university, and shoot the whole thing in real time as a long take. Unfortunately our budget is tiny (virtually non existent), so my first idea of using a lighting balloon seems out of the question. We also thought of constructing some kind of huge lightbox out of semi-translucent perspex, with a number of high powered lights behind, but again this will be a massive stretch on out budget. VFX We shoot the girls performance (walking towards camera) against a green screen, and then shoot the "sun" effect seperately as a background plate. We thought we could shoot a chine ball, projector beam down the lens, spotlight through diffusion, various lightbulbs etc and then comp the two together. However we shoot S16mm, transferred to DigiBeta, and obviously cannot afford a scan so i'm worried that resolution will not be high enough to carry any kind of VFX work convincingly. Just wanted to see if anyone had any ideas about which stock to use (was thinking 7212) we have to use kodak obviously, and more importantly how do we create the sun effect. I would love to be able to shoot it practically, but think it is unlikely we will be able to rent or build a source this big for our budget. Any help greatly appreciated. Cheers, Rob

No luck from Arri. I'm looking for Super16mm version by the way.