PhilPowers

Yeah thanks, I wasnt reading your reply correctly ( i was in a bit of a hurry and just stuck in traffic). So tell me based on your 21 micron circle of conf. In the space that says resolution ???? lines/mm what would i type? Sorry my maths is poor. Cheers guys.. :>

thanks, they are film style canon zooms so that you can have ARRI follow focus with a longer throw and more linear focus. Anyway my question is not what kind of lenses do i have i would like to know where i can obtain depth of field charts for them. if anyone knows kindly point me in the direction, thanks p

Hi guys, please help. I am currently working with some film style canon digibeta lenses i.e. no servos etc. I am after some depth of field charts for these lenses does anyone know where I can download them? Im in a bit of a hurry. I need charts for Canonj15, Canonj20, Canonj8 or is it j9 any help with this would be fab. :huh:

Please please find a director forum. You are taking up time valuable time of cinematographers here. You shouldn't get involoved with the technical side of filmaking, but concentrate on your duties to the story as the Director. Then you might have a chance of pulling this off. The best of luck to you...and don't forget, you still have a lot to learn!

I think you need to decide what time of day you are going to shoot. Then go along with your light meter and work out how much fill you are going to need if you choose to use existing light. Get hold of some Rosco 3902 silver pebble. In fact Rosco make a host of mirror products including some golds for a bit of warmth. As I said time of day is important try to make it work for you. Also check the colour and height of the ceiling while your there. This may have to be your main bounce it would help if its not green or black.. I have seen the entire length of a glass sided boat ND'd before it just is soo time consuming. Do you intend to see the view? I think you should try shooting when the sun is behind you if you can imagine that and you can then have light coming from an unseen window behind camera or to your left/right. The very best of luck. Positve Phil

Hi there again- I see nobody has been able to answer my last questions, so heres a much more simple one. How can I achieve really narrow depth of fields for my MCUs like it was shot on 35mm when using Digibeta. Now I know all about ND so lets say im already wide open on a standard canon zoom and my backgrounds are still not blurred enough. Is it possible to use a fast film lens for instance (50mm T1?) and what are the back focus and mount implications?? Could I use some sort of split diopter the wrong way round?? Or Chromakey and blur my plates in post?? Whats the answer? All the Best- Positive Phil (UK)

hi there- you might want to try using a polariser to reduce the glare from the floor. If you can remove the ground row you will save youself a lot of bother. Phil's sugestion of using a waveform monitor is a excellent one this will help you lots on the day, if you can't get hold of one try Hamlet they make a small in line waveform generator which plugs between you camera and monitor to make your monitor a waveform monitor. Be very careful of using dimmers on individual lamps/heads/lanterns/luminaries this will alter the colour temp and may not give you a good matte. Any just some thoughts and hey what do I know??? Good luck :)

hello there, I have been asked to shoot a person talking to camera using day for night on digibeta. This will take place in a corridor one side of which is a bank of windows during the day with no direct sunlight. The director has called for this to look like the night scenes from a harry potter film. Namely the scene when harry is using his invisibilty cloak for the first time and alan rickman senses he's there. Anyway I have to do all of this in camera as there is no possible way that there is time to do this in post. My question therefore is if im going to blue filter, desaturate and underexpose to give me a half decent day for night background how should I light my talent? Or How much light do I need to illuminate my foreground subject if im say three stops under in the shade on a Bristish summer day?? Am i right in thinking I should be three stops over to compensate for the 3 im under for the back ground? help my head is starting to spin... Oh yeah shooting this at night is not an option by the way.. All the best PP

hi guys - I need some advice as too how to achieve a good day for night using the sony 790. Im guessing a little desaturation and a blue filter with a couple of stops under will give me something in the way of a start. My question is has anyone out there succesfully used any day for night filter and what are you thoughts on such things. I will have to do all my effects in camera as no post tweaks are possible. The shoot is in a corridor with one side being a bank of windows that you will not be able to see out of due to my angle. I cannot shot this at night before you tell me to do that by the way. Im thinking of filling the forground to compensate for being under by 2-3 stops what sort of lighting are we talking about. (HMI im guessing but what rating??) I do have 13amp power available. please help all the best PP

If you have the time to read a book before you start shooting I would recommend "Placing Shadows" Lighting Techniques for Video Production by Chuck B.Gloman. This book assumes no proir knowledge of lighting and covers all the questions you have raised in your posting. If you dont have time to read a book then go and spend a day with someone who is involved with lighting maybe at a local theatre. I know in my city there is a monthly lighting day at the theatre where you can have a go at rigging some lights and seeing the effect they have. This is by far the quickest way to learn. Lighting is really a doing rather than a reading about thing. Oh yeah get hold of some copies of American Cinematographer they have some nice pics showing the lighting in films you can then watch the DVDs and see the effects created by the lights they are using. And if you do nothing else but remember this golden rule you wont go far wrong.."Less is more!" try to create some shadows and add depth and separation from you background. Oh yeah and the very best of luck!!

Hi guys - I have been asked to shot a sequence where a scientist will break a wine glass with powerful sound waves. I have seen this done before and can remeber it fracturing very fast. My director has asked if this action can be slowed in any way. Can you advise me? It will be shot on digi beta and we will be able to do the demo a number of times. I also have a PD150 "ehh!" at my disposal. There has been mention of some split screen stuff. How can I make this look good using video?? Any sugestions would be gratfully accepted.. All the best - Positive Phil. B)

Hi guys - I have been asked to shot a sequence where a scientist will break a wine glass with powerful sound waves. I have seen this done before and can remeber it fracturing very fast. My director has asked if this action can be slowed in any way. Can you advise me? It will be shot on digi beta and we will be able to do the demo a number of times. I also have a PD150 "ehh!" at my disposal. There has been mention of some split screen stuff. How can I make this look good using video?? Any sugestions would be gratfully accepted.. All the best - Positive Phil. B)

Very well done - please continue to inspire all of us at the other end of the scale. Thank you for your hugely helpful input to this forum. Keep up the great work..

Very well done - please continue to inspire all of us at the other end of the scale. Thank you for your hugely helpful input to this forum. Keep up the great work..

hi there - I had a the same type of problem on a recent short. Without knowing what the story requires you to show its hard to say whats best. However if it is supposed to be a night interior in a domestic house/flat then would it be so out of place to have the curtains(drapes) closed?? You can then simply gaffer tape some black sugar paper(thin art board) to the outside. From a low shooting angle even with the curtains ope this is a cheap beliveable effect as you will only be seing the black night sky from a low angle. Your idea of ND will not work mainly because at night there are all sorts of other light sources ie. cars passing will not have their headlights on shop fronts will not be illuminated etc. The best bet if you have time is to visit the location at night and work out your angles of view. You will then have a good idea of what light you need to create if any. Do you have any night exteriors that precced these interiors? These will dictate your mood. If its very heavly street lit then a strong moon light will not fit well. If you do have views out into the city at night can you not simply shoot these at night?? I hope this helps PP

Hi there - the one thing the guys have overlooked is that of course to get your lens wide open you may need to use a 'neutral density' filter on the lens. These filters as the name sugest do not colour or alter the image in any way, but they do absorb some of the light and as a result you need to open the lens appeture. The more you do this, the shallower the depth of field. these come in various strenghts. Also move the camera away from the subject and use a more telephoto lens to give you the same shot. This will blur the background even more. Hope this helps a little

We are ALL missing a very important point here. Everyone is arguing about their DSLR being as good if not better than a 35mm film neg which has been scanned and then Photoshoped and then injeted! Well that may be the case in fact ive read many times on forums about people selling their RZ67 because they get better results on the computer straight from a DSLR. This maybe true. But if they were good enough to capture a fantasic picture straight to film and then not need to scan but simply to go to print on photographic paper, you remember like Ansel Adams back in the days b4 anybody could call themselves a photographer, you know when you had to know what you doing. Then there is NO comparison Film Rules!! end of story. We would be wise not to forget the masters of the neg so quickly! There is no way that a DSLR could even come close to a exhibition print straight from 5x4. God knows if it could I would sell all my film stuff tomorrow digital is not a poor mans tool but it is a for people who don't know how to do what they want with film so just do it with a computer after they have taken the photographs. Is this art?? Who knows? but it sure isn't skillful. As a ex image retoucher by trade I know - I love photoshop but it is responsible for killing the art of photography bit by bit.

We are ALL missing a very important point here. Everyone is arguing about their DSLR being as good if not better than a 35mm film neg which has been scanned and then Photoshoped and then injeted! Well that may be the case in fact ive read many times on forums about people selling their RZ67 because they get better results on the computer straight from a DSLR. This maybe true. But if they were good enough to capture a fantasic picture straight to film and then not need to scan but simply to go to print on photographic paper, you remember like Ansel Adams back in the days b4 anybody could call themselves a photographer, you know when you had to know what you doing. Then there is NO comparison Film Rules!! end of story. We would be wise not to forget the masters of the neg so quickly! There is no way that a DSLR could even come close to a exhibition print straight from 5x4. God knows if it could I would sell all my film stuff tomorrow digital is not a poor mans tool but it is a for people who don't know how to do what they want with film so just do it with a computer after they have taken the photographs. Is this art?? Who knows? but it sure isn't skillful. As a ex image retoucher by trade I know - I love photoshop but it is responsible for killing the art of photography bit by bit.

Thanks for that guys - I get it now. Thats one more tiny step on my road of cinematogrphy taken. I must go and put it into practice. all the best PP

Thanks for that guys - I get it now. Thats one more tiny step on my road of cinematogrphy taken. I must go and put it into practice. all the best PP

Could you please explain what Negative fill is. Sorry im being a bit dim! And in what situation it is used? Thanks for a great resource its my daily read at the moment..

I think you really have to define your use of the term 'photography' if you are refering to any profession that uses a camera to record single images as 'photography' then I think its safe to say that film is almost dead, however the majority of these professions have very little experience of quality in the true sense and would like to think they are somehow in an artistic trade but this is not true. The point and shoot photographers that have little concept of light and would spend 80% of there budget on the camera and 20% on the lenses dont understand film and therefore dont like it they will make limitless excuses not to use it and it is true that so much can be done in post now that their shots can be quite good. But its that attitude of grab it now and then spending hours fixing it in the computer that is killing the art of stills photography. Bottom line is if you ever want to go bigger than A3 you have to use film. I own both film and digi. I must say digi is really very convenient but dont enjoy using it as much as a manual 40 year old Rollei with no built in meter and if time permits will always shoot film, sadly people are not prepared to wait or pay for film and most cant tell the difference between the two in experienced hands.

I think you really have to define your use of the term 'photography' if you are refering to any profession that uses a camera to record single images as 'photography' then I think its safe to say that film is almost dead, however the majority of these professions have very little experience of quality in the true sense and would like to think they are somehow in an artistic trade but this is not true. The point and shoot photographers that have little concept of light and would spend 80% of there budget on the camera and 20% on the lenses dont understand film and therefore dont like it they will make limitless excuses not to use it and it is true that so much can be done in post now that their shots can be quite good. But its that attitude of grab it now and then spending hours fixing it in the computer that is killing the art of stills photography. Bottom line is if you ever want to go bigger than A3 you have to use film. I own both film and digi. I must say digi is really very convenient but dont enjoy using it as much as a manual 40 year old Rollei with no built in meter and if time permits will always shoot film, sadly people are not prepared to wait or pay for film and most cant tell the difference between the two in experienced hands.

Hi there I was just reading the advice to the last post and would like some help from the professionals out there. I am really very keen to become a cinematographer and would welcome advice as to what I should do this year that will help me towards my goal. I have been taking stills for around 12 years and have taken stills for many dramas and 16mm shorts in my time. I am very interested in the technical aspects both optical and chemical and did a lot of cross process stuff some years ago. I have been on a BBC camera training course and have been doing a fair amount of assisting for free with my local TV station. They do not do any drama and it is mainly PSC/ENG type stuff and I already feel im wasting my time with them as I have a lot of questions about tweaking the image with the Digibeta but none of the guys I have worked with ever bother and just say "ahh they can do that in post", which never happens by the way. I have a very keen interest in lighting and enjoy being creative with light. I guess I should be going down the film route, but that is easier said than done. So if anyone can give me some very direct advice (i.e. not just general) then please help. I guess i'm looking for a plan of attack where someone will say you should call xyz or go to the NFTC and do a MA. Be warned im serious about my goal and I am going to do this, so if anyone knows of any books i should definately buy and read or any cousres I should attend then please say. well thanks for your time - and I hope to hear from all you brainboxes soon All the best Phil

Hi there I was just reading the advice to the last post and would like some help from the professionals out there. I am really very keen to become a cinematographer and would welcome advice as to what I should do this year that will help me towards my goal. I have been taking stills for around 12 years and have taken stills for many dramas and 16mm shorts in my time. I am very interested in the technical aspects both optical and chemical and did a lot of cross process stuff some years ago. I have been on a BBC camera training course and have been doing a fair amount of assisting for free with my local TV station. They do not do any drama and it is mainly PSC/ENG type stuff and I already feel im wasting my time with them as I have a lot of questions about tweaking the image with the Digibeta but none of the guys I have worked with ever bother and just say "ahh they can do that in post", which never happens by the way. I have a very keen interest in lighting and enjoy being creative with light. I guess I should be going down the film route, but that is easier said than done. So if anyone can give me some very direct advice (i.e. not just general) then please help. I guess i'm looking for a plan of attack where someone will say you should call xyz or go to the NFTC and do a MA. Be warned im serious about my goal and I am going to do this, so if anyone knows of any books i should definately buy and read or any cousres I should attend then please say. well thanks for your time - and I hope to hear from all you brainboxes soon All the best Phil