Steve Munro

Ah Chris, in a way you're right and I feel humbled by the experience. Someone mentioned to me that, between the two lenses, the 16mm would be better in low-light situations and I just wanted to check the professional opinion based on my own gut feelings that maybe they were right. Ok, I asked the question in the wrong way but that shouldn't mean it leaves me open to attack in a forum of like-minded people. Personally, I'd rather ask a dumb question to get the right answer rather than keep my mouth shut and get it wrong when it matters the most - there is a lot of poorly exposed work out there already (quite a lot by people who claim superiority I might add) and I would hate to screw up my work by not asking the questions. It should be that when we enter a forum with a question, the person asking it should feel safe in the knowledge that the question will be answered rather than the integrity of the person suffer attack. If all we do is attack then it just means that less people will ask questions through fear of appearing stupid in an apparently professional auditorium which, ultimately, can lead to poor standards such as under-exposure being cheaply sold off as "atmospheric" or lights being placed in ridiculously unjustifiable positions. I don't mind if someone says "ha ha, you're an idiot - you should know that; in my opinion the lens you need is X" - then I'll take it on the chin. But if I get an answer that includes "self-proclaimed cinematographer" (i.e. I'm just calling myself a cinematographer without actually being one, like if I called myself a Director of Photography and I worked as a theater technician for example) then I see that as hostile and an attack on my professional integrity. Most of the time I wouldn't dignify that attitude with a response, but even your president has to show his birth certificate on occasion ;). Kind regards, Steve

Thanks David, that's the sensible answer I was after. David Williams, I accept what you say but I too was dumbfounded by your attitude (arrogance?) in your first comment: I'm sure you're aware (as the secretary for the Vic branch of ACS) that the ACS defines a cinematographer thus: "A cinematographer is a person with technical expertise who manipulates light to transfer visual information by the use of a camera into aesthetic moving images on motion picture film or electronic recording systems." Over the last ten years I've filmed on three continents using a variety of cameras utilizing multiple formats with a large number of lenses including fixed prime and zoom. I have a certificate in cinematography from a UK film school in which Jack Cardiff OBE, BSC (RIP) was the patron and which, at night times, I complimented my practical studies with a university course in Contemporary European Cinema which preceded a full scholarship for a degree (BA) in which I majored in Film Theory. I've worked on feature films from 2nd A.C. through to camera operator and 2nd unit cinematographer. One of my short films was nominated for an award at a film festival (I didn't win but the nomination was nice) for its cinematography. I've filmed from several hundred feet up while hanging out of a helicopter (as well as sweeping shots that were called Herzogian); and I've filmed from a moving RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat) travelling at over thirty-five knots an hour on the North Sea. I've shot documentaries, news, current affairs, OB, studio, live international OB, over fifty commercials, reality TV, observational factual and even an underwater dance film. My work is in the public domain, has been broadcast nationally and internationally as well as screened theatrically and also formed part of a national UK tour of the projected portion of a dance company's performance. You can even buy my work on DVD. I'm accredited as a professional SCUBA diver (from the Fort William Dive Centre, Scotland) which allows me to be paid to film underwater. I also hold professional accreditation with the AFI (Australian Film Institute) and, like yourself, I'm a full member (two years standing) of the ACS. Cinematography is my primary source of income (over 95%) and it's what my accountant writes on my documents to the ATO. Although I consider myself as early career (I do not advertise myself as a Director of Photography as I believe I have a lot more to learn before I'm capable of that position (and the accreditation that follows)) you can bet your ass that I've earned the right to call myself a cinematographer. So, forgive me for asking a bog-standard question in a dumb way but that doesn't detract from my integrity or capabilities as many will attest to. I said "fastest" and meant "best", but that doesn't explain your hostility as I took your response to be. Steve

Thanks David. I haven't shot in a low-light situation for over ten years; the question came up and I had a nagging suspicion that, over a range of apertures, the 16mm lens would perform better than the 50mm. I think in wanting to scratch an itch my mistake was asking which is the fastest when, obviously, I should have asked which is the best. Kind regards, Steve

Woah, David - you're kidding me right? Of course I know what a T stop is so what's with the personal attack? The question I'm asking is not about the T-stop alone. Let's ignore the red-herrings of 2 and 3 for a second and ask the real question of which prime in the list is the fastest? That is, will the shorter focal length of the 16mm T2 result in a lens that is better in low-light situations than the 50mm T1.4? It's a simple question that I'd like people's opinion based on personal experience, so I don't understand why you gave a bitchy reply like that; have I done something to piss you off or are you being tongue in cheek 'cause mate, if you've got nothing to say then don't say it. Otherwise, in your opinion, which lens do you think would be better in a low-light situation and, in the meantime, forgive me for not knowing everything and asking a question of those who may know more than me. Self-proclaimed cinematographer indeed... Steve

Any technological advancement will have corresponding changes in the way the improved technology is used; as an example, look at what happened when sound was introduced - cameras were severly limited in their ability to move so cinematographers had to get more inventive with placement. Steve

I agree with John; if there is no clash with the 12 days and you like the people as well sa the script then why not do it? There are some genuine causes out there that just need a littlehelp every now and again... Steve

Quick pop-quiz on lens choice for low-light filming (i.e., which is the fastest in your opinion?) 1: 16mm T2 prime; 2: 5.7mm - 57mm T2.4 zoom; 3: 12mm - 120mm T2.8 zoom: or, 4: 50mm T1.4 prime ? I'm personally thinking the 16mm T2 but would like to hear what others think. Cheers, Steve

Can I suggest that you be a bit more specific in your questions? Steve

I think he means 2.35:1 as his aspect ratio (i.e. anamorphic). Out of curiosity Schmitz, is there a reason you don't want to be using an anamorphic lens? You'll be wasting a lot of film without it (just get your ground glass with 1.33:1 aspect ratio then mask out the corresponding 2.35:1 and you'll see what I mean). Steve

Do you have any more information on what you're trying to achieve? Shooting a car is like shooting a mirror... Steve

Don't forget about light source (direction) as well. Unless you're after a neo-noir effect then lighting from below only is going to give you, well, that noir look. For real portability you can get some LED strip lights that can be powered by a 12v battery with maybe a dimmer along the circuit and gels over the light to match the temperature of the on-screen perceived light source; this becomes especially true if you want correct exposure with the source-light (i.e. camp fire) in shot at the same time as the actors. Steve

I agree with Adrian - buy a light meter. You can get them pretty cheap and even if you have 'no money' you can still pick up an analogue meter for around ten dollars these days (e.g.: http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Hanimex-PR-60-Light-Meter-/180650465643?pt=AU_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item2a0f9b596b) that will give you a better EI than a calibrated for digital sensor. And it would be better having this read the light directly from the various points of, say, your talent's face, than to have one reading of an entire frame that includes a wide dynamic range. Steve

Well, if you're looking for an intelligent choice, you should have said :D the F3 with a full prime kit is about half the price of the red. My guess was that you were working on price as a factor. If that's not the case then an obvious (digital cinema) choice would be the Alexa. I haven't used the AF100 but I know the P2 very well and have been impressed with it's latitude so that's something worth considering with the AF100 (i.e. do Panasonic consider that in this camera?). The EX3 next to a Scarlet? Hasn't the Scarlet been "coming soon" for around three years now? What's your budget for camera and lens kit? B) Steve

Hi Jonathan, Movie Slate will sync and I use it on my Ipad : http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id320315888?mt=8 I'm a bit confused though because the first bit of your post suggests timecode being used aesthetically (i.e. in your video clip)... is that a look you're after? You'll have to pay extra for the timecode sync part of Movie Slate but it is a great resource to have for an iPad. Steve

You can't ND the windows so have you considered placing the cameras behind black screens/curtains (in a sense, creating hides) and lighting from above you with selective 2.5k spots focused on the subject? Steve

If we're discussing light then it can be assumed that there is no natural lighting at night-time. You therefore have to go with locations that have greater sources of light if you're not intending to use any that you're bringing in yourself. The 7D is based on ISO 160 and anything that is not a multiple of that (Such as 320, 640 etc) is not a true ISO setting - it's gain (something to consider). So, I'd agree with Adrian and suggest you go for a lower ISO (ASA) and then add light to get the look you need. The danger of using only ambient light (or a single source) is that your images can look very flat and, as shown in your test footage, you can have those deep-shadows that you might not want. Go with what Adrian says and start building a simple light kit as essential to your needs (as essential as your camera). But, in the meantime, if all you've got is a couple of LED torches and some tracing paper (hint), then the difference is only in how creative you can be with it. Steve

Hi David, first off: the overheating issue is only a problem if you need to record extended scenes (such as might be necessary in a documentary and/or interview) and is very rarely an issue for drama or commercials because it's unlikely that you'd need to roll for more than fourteen minutes. If you consider the length of recording time pre-digital era was limited to reel size in feet, you'll understand why this is not an issue. Control over DoF is a creative decision and if you know how to use focal length with aperture correctly, you can achieve any degree of DoF regardless of the camera format. I went to a screening recently of a feature film that I operated on ("Who wants to be a terrorist" IMDB and trailer) that was shot with the EX3 and I was amazed at how it held up to the big screen - the quality was incredible. The EX3 has an interchangeable lens that means you can get an adapter to put cine lenses on the camera - always a bonus - and these days, you can get hold of one for half the price of last years listing. The EX1 and EX3 are basically the same camera (certainly from the insides point of view) but the EX3 is better in three areas: 1: changeable lens system; 2: viewfinder location (on the side compared to behind the camera); and, 3: semi-shoulder mount (meaning you can obtain better stability when off the tripod). I think the 7D is a good camera to have for many reasons (I have one) such as lens choice, sensor size and portability (it can get into many areas that larger cameras can't get into so is worth including in your kit as standard) but I wouldn't use it in the same way as the EX3 (i.e. as a go-to camera for run and gun; which, incidentally, the EX3 was used for in the blockbuster film Battle Los Angeles(2011)). Having said all of this, I would seriously consider the SONY F3 as something to buy. Currently, you can get the camera for $16000 (a similar price to the release of the EX3) and you'll soon be able to get hold of a set of primes for it for an extra $7000. This is an incredible price for the quality of camera and glass. So, ultimately, it comes down to how much you want to spend on your system but I'd certainly recommend getting both the 7D and the EX3 as a start-up kit. Steve

Hi Jonathan, do you need it for sync purposes or is it purely for aesthetics (i.e. to be used diegetically?) SteveMunro