Bruce Greene

Then there's only one solution: You need to rig two lighting setups, one for "lights on" and one for "lights off". Then you must have each setup wired so that you can switch from one to the other during the shot. If it's a small setup, you might get away with having entire setups plugged into one cord and simply plug and unplug it. Bigger setups will require a switch box, or better, a remote dimmer board to control the lighting change. Because you will be turning on lights during the shot, avoid electronic lamps that have a delayed startup, such as kinoflow, many LEDs, and even tungsten dido lights. If during your "lights on" setup, you can also have the "lights off" lamps lit, then you won't have this issue.

often on small budget feature films, the producers use "alternate facts" to increase the budget listed. If you're trying to sell a film with a zero budget, than that will be the starting point for negotiations. On the other hand, some films such as "El Mariachi" make a point of publicizing unbelievably low budgets to generate "buzz". I think they said they spent $7000 to shoot the film, but in the end, they spent perhaps 1M dollars to create a soundtrack and finish the film for distribution. Generally, short films can cost about $1000/minute of finished film to really produce, so you might let that be your guide, though it probably won't matter much what is listed for a short film, unless you are lucky enough to have a buyer interested.

My first major equipment purchase was a Steadicam back in 1984, when few people would take a chance on such a difficult and expensive piece of equipment. Within months I started getting calls, even from some major motion pictures. But it's still expensive, and now a common item. Off the top of my head, maybe some specialized piece of equipment like an ultra high speed slow motion camera? A technocrane, as it is very big and few would want to take one home at the end of the day? You might think about "barriers to entry" (size, expense, complexity, difficulty to master) to try to find a unique niche.

Are you referring to moving the camera from a brightly lit area to a dark moody area? Or, do you plan to change the lighting during the shot?

When I first started shooting digital capture, I metered and lit for a "film" look. IOW, the meat of the image within the 6 stop range, with the extra highlight and shadow detail for rolling off into black and white. But, over time I've adjusted my approach to using much more of the dynamic range of the camera for presentation and using less for rolloff. So, I'm lighting much more high contrast than I used to, and grading with a much lower contrast. Kind of like lighting for 10 stops of DR rather than 6. For a day exterior, this doesn't much matter as I have little control over the lighting, but if I have a deep shadow area and a sunlit area in the same shot, I might not fill in the shadow area at all or little. Note that when using this technique, one must carefully watch the clip points of the image as there can be little room for recovery in post color correction. And if you are metering with this approach, a spot meter can be useful, but you must run some tests so that your ISO setting on the meter corresponds to the recording of the camera. So, ISO on the camera might not match that on the light meter. Of course you can also use the waveform or other tools from the camera and/or display but they must not be viewed through a REC709 LUT or you won't see all the information.

It seems to me that if you continually rent out your equipment, then you will be a rental house without the equipment available for your own use. So, you might make a profit, but you'll loose the marketing advantage of having your own kit available. From my experience, owning cameras can be good marketing, but not a good investment for making a rental profit. For me, the marketing advantage was worth it, but I won't be buying anymore cameras as I no longer need that type of marketing. To be useful as a marketing tool, you'll need to own the camera package that few of your competitors will have, and that can mean an expensive package. Even better would be to also have some type of unique accessories that others won't have, but I can't think of any right now ? In other words, think about what kind of package will get you new types of work that you want to do, and that your competitors will not have, or will not dare to invest in. Maybe some unusual vintage lenses? Something like that.

I strongly agree! Go Howard!!! Great products from a great man! I do think the one invention that has changed the way films are shot and staged (in the last 45 years) is Garrett Brown's Steadicam. When this invention was first introduced, most filmmakers and especially cinematographers, would only use it for running shots, stairways, and certainly only when a dolly or crane could not be used. But, over time, it's use has broadened to include all kinds of scenes and shots and has really changed the visual language of cinema, from simple scenes to the most complex staging, to the point... where we hardly notice it anymore.

If one is shooting with the light so close to the subject, why worry about the inverse square law at all? At least as it applies to the subject. The background will be far enough away that one might take it into consideration however, and at that distance, the size of the diffuser won't matter.

A "3 dimensional" light source? If you mean a big white ball, than that complicates the math as each point on the surface of the ball has a different distance to the subject. But practically speaking, at a far enough distance you can "view" your ball as a point source. After all, the sun is a sphere, but it is so far away that we "see" it as a point source.

I respectfully disagree. You are correct that you can imagine a diffuse source as "infinitely small point light sources" and each "source" will spread their light according to the inverse square law. If we have a point source "x" that has an intensity of 20 at 1 meter distance, it will have the intensity of 5 at two meters distance. If we add a second point source next to it, there will be an intensity of 40 at 1 meter and an intensity of 10 at two meters. IOW, adding the two intensities together, 20 +20 = 40 (at 1 meter) and 5+5=10 at two meters. And 10 is also 1/4 of 40. So if we have "n" light sources (infinitely small point light sources", and 100% intensity at 1 meter = n x point light source, then the total light at 2 meters will be n x (number of light sources) / 4.

Well Sam, you are asking a bunch of camera geeks/artists to comment on your screenwriting. An unusual choice of critics! That said, filmmaking is something we really learn by doing, and you are quite young. Go make your best movie and screen it when you are finished. And watch the audience. You will learn more than anything we can say here. And you will certainly improve on the next film! If I were to give advice to a novice filmmaker, it would be to make a short film (or 2 or 3) without any dialog, or even synch sound...

The inverse square law holds the same for diffused light as it does for a point source. The one difference, is that when you place diffusion in front of light, the diffusion surface becomes the light source. So, you would measure from the diffusion and not the lamp behind the diffusion.

I really suspect this is a bit of marketing BS. 2383 and vision camera original stocks to handle some colors "better" than digital workflows, but also handle some colors much worse. Film has it's own "look", yes, but "color separation"? I'm not sure this is really one of them... It's been my observation that film tends to force near flesh tones towards a "standard" flesh tone, removing variations of skin tones in a "pleasing" way. And this seems the opposite of "color separation". One of the first things I notice about a digital capture, vs a film capture is that the digital image shows more distinctly colored reflections/variations in the skin tones that don't usually present themselves as strongly on film.

I would like to add that the appearance of sharpness or detail can also be the result of digital post processing. And so it becomes more difficult these days to watch a completed film and make accurate judgements about the lenses used. I guess what I'm saying is that to make accurate judgements about the part of the look contributed by the optics, it is necessary to compare/test the optics with all post processing standardized to eliminate other variables. Something such as light fall off towards the sides and corners of the image can make a big difference in the feel of the lens ... but this effect can also be easily added or subtracted during color correction. Even a "defocus" vignette is easy to do as well. I guess what I'm saying is that the impression of "intense sharpness" might well be a digital post effect rather than from the lens itself.

The advice to shoot at dusk is really essential. Headlights and lights perhaps in the house will really sell the effect. A couple things though: Dusk for you may only last about 30 minutes. Be prepared in advance for any lighting that you'll do, and be prepared to quickly lower the intensity of your lights as the night grows closer. Even at dusk, a wide shot of the house may require sky replacement as a digital effect in post production. So be ready for this added expense. Also, in this digital effect one can add shafts of light coming from the house windows or even enhance the light coming from the car headlights. If you really must shoot this at noon, you can still do the sky replacement and animate the headlights and the light they throw in the digital effect, but it gets more complicated and expensive. And possibly less convincing. If the wide shot that shows the sky is done with a locked off camera, this effect becomes easier for the digital artists and may be less expensive. I once did a wide, moon lit shot, in the desert in the daytime and replaced the sky myself with a starry night and it was very very convincing! All the coverage was shot not to include the sky...

My first reaction to this question is to learn Photoshop well first. The concepts are the same, only the software is different. And there are many many good books and articles about Photoshop. Color grading books, not so much as the user base is much much smaller.

A not full res frame from the old Varicam H ?

Luka, I have a 27H with a KiPro Mini ProRes recorder. It records from the Varicam in true 10 bits. With the best setup, the camera can shoot about 12 stops of dynamic range. And the color reproduction of this camera is very very pleasing even before color correction. I used my camera for the first time in years, a couple months ago and had forgotten how good it can look. If you're interested, I'd be happy to sell the kit as I don't have much demand these days for 720P, though I'm not sure most people can tell that it's 720P ? I also have a 4.5 - 109mm (or something like that) Fujinon lens for it. About 11.5mm to 150mm in 35mm movie camera equivalent. If interested, please send me a PM here or email me from the contact page on my website: www.brucealangreene.com

Everyone is replaceable...

From my experience... When I've worked for free I've always understood that I should not expect any financial compensation for the project. My first real "connection" in the business I met while working as an AC for free and a DP I met there later hired me on my first "real" feature film. So, it was worth the time I put in to learn the job and get started. Much later, I shot a short film for free and I even donated my camera package that I had invested quite a bit of money in. I only asked that the filmmaker pay for a couple key crew members, but I declined any payment for myself or my equipment. A few years later this filmmaker introduced my daughter to some people at the TV network where the filmmaker worked in their "day" job. And... this led to my daughter becoming a PA and later a writer/producer at the TV network. Declining any payment for this project and donating my expensive equipment didn't help my career, but it made all the investment in the equipment (which I never came close to recouping in rentals) all worthwhile! So, Pro Bono work is really a shot in the dark. Don't expect anything in return, but... even years later, who knows how this might change your life? If you have the time, and like the filmmakers, why not roll the dice? ?

It depends on the lamp. I've seen some pretty bad results from doing this, with the lamps often photographing as rather green/yellow. I would suggest testing before shooting.

I think here it's more about the contrast than the type of lamp. For an interview, a small fresnel lamp will give you sharp shadows, or even a dedo light would work well for a backlight. Even a smallish soft LED lamp can work... if it is set bright enough to create the contrast that you desire. Also note that in the two examples you've posted, the background is quite dark. Creating a dark background for this effect will help the most to get the effect you like.

Since you may not know how the scene will be edited, if you have time, it's best to shoot (at least the close ups) from both eye lines. When I've worked with two cameras, I've sometimes shot the close up of a single character with two cameras. One looking right to left, and the second, left to right. If you don't have time to shoot every actor with two eye lines, it can be useful to pick out a couple of the main actors and shoot only them from two eye lines in order to give the editor an opportunity to change eye lines when necessary.

If you do this test, also test developing the film at different development times. You might find that "pulling" one stop on development protects your highlights for the scan. It might also make for a more grainy final image, and that's why you would need to test this ?

I've done the opposite. Background in fast motion, foreground in normal speed. We did this by lighting the foreground and background, removing the foreground actors and furniture, shooting the background as a plate, and then bringing in a green screen to shoot the foreground against and composited in post. It worked quite well. Ours was complicated by the requirement that the lighting change from day to night during the shot, and this required that the lighting changes be designed into the setup in advance...