Bruce Greene

Here's a screen shot of the frame preview. Notice the histogram on the bottom left. All your detail is far to the left indication under exposure. I've adjusted the preview to make the image as presentable as possible...

I agree. I downloaded the color dpx and viewed it on a dpx scan viewer software. The image is quite under exposed, maybe 1 stop. Rodrigo, When you exposed your film did you compensate for the viewfinder mirror on the bolex? You might have to adjust 1/2 stop just for that. Also, your lenses may be marked in f-stops and not "T" stops and may not be as accurate as professional movie camera lenses regarding the iris. If you were using a zoom lens, this would be a significant effect along with the viewfinder compensation. You can try to adjust as best you can in post, but it will look grainy I think. Best of luck to you.

Jason, I don't know if this will apply to the HVX, but I did some tests on my Varicam by looking at the maximum dynamic range of the camera using tungsten and daylight and not using any color correction filters on the camera. The Varicam allows one to shoot in FilmRec mode and see the entire dynamic range that the camera can shoot. The idea behind the test was to see when a single color clipped before the others using a waveform monitor and controlled lighting. The conventional wisdom was that the camera should always be used in tungsten mode and use the colored filter wheel to correct for daylight (or 85 type filter in front of the lens). My conclusion was that the camera is at it's optimum between the two color temperatures, but closer to daylight. Setting the camera to daylight mode (for daylight shooting) resulted in slightly less noisy images than tungsten mode with tungsten light. I now shoot the camera in daylight mode for daylight with no filter and tungsten mode for tungsten with no filter. If the ccd's and color filters are similar for the HVX, then the same advice should apply to your camera.

Tyler, You've gotten a lot of great responses so far but I'd just like to add one more thought. If you're shooting on digital, the operator might not have the best view of the shot. Focus might be hard to see and it may be hard to judge the lighting in a poor quality viewfinder. On a film camera the operator gets a pretty good look at the shot, but on digital the DP might get a much better view looking at quality monitor. As an example, I remember once watching the monitor on a difficult to focus shot. The operator couldn't tell if it was in focus, but I could see that it wasn't. So, I operated a take myself...I couldn't see the focus either and my operator did a better job. Best of luck with your feature!

Ashley, I went to AFI a long time ago so I can't say what they're looking for today. That said, why don't you write or call and ask them? In the real world, very few people who view movies really knows what makes good cinematography. But they do know if they like the movie! You might consider submitting your strongest movies rather than the ones you think show the best cinematography. Good luck!

Chris, I don't believe the still stocks and motion picture stocks are the same. The motion picture stocks make a lower contrast negative than the still camera stocks. They also develop in different chemistry. I don't know where to develop short rolls of motion picture stock now that A&I stopped this service. That said I just shot a movie in Eastern Europe (Georgia) and the still photographer from Tbilisi shot movie stock for tungsten lit scenes. But where will you process it? At home, of course! He uses a squeegee to remove the black backing and scans the film on a film scanner. He doesn't make slides. So, all you'll need is a short end, a changing bag, a developing tank, a bunch of chemicals, and a sink and you're in business. Hope this helps sort of :unsure: Good luck. You know, I think the kodak Portra films kind of look like the movie film if you just want to try that. But you'll have to scan it yourself I think to see what it might look like in a DI. For a movie print, you're kind of out of luck.

Hi David, I have the Fuji 4.5-59mm lens. It's quite good, but I don't know how it compares to Canon though. The good: 4.5mm is very very wide and I've been surprised how many times I've used it. No focus breathing (zooming while changing focus) Long zoom range can make some interesting zooms. The not so good: Kind of soft at T1.8 but much better at 2.8-8.0 There is significant light falloff toward the corners of the image, especially at wide focal lengths and wide apertures. It often looks good for the image, but not always :) There is significant chromatic abrasion at some focal lengths and apertures. Overall: I think the fuji is about as good as there is for a lens this compact and with this focal length range. The "look" of the ENG version is exactly the same as the "Cine" version. The cine version (which I have) has no zoom motor or 2x extender, but is easier to focus by setting the distance scale. I think you will want the ENG version if the camera operator is doing his/her own focusing, especially if shooting handheld. Sounds like a big adventure. Have a great trip!

It also seemed more realistic than "to infinity---and beyond!"

It just seemed better than "live long and prosper" or "here's looking at you, kid", which might have been taken the wrong way ;) It certainly beats telling Brian, "about your parents, 'make them an offer they can't refuse'", or tell your mother that "frankly you don't give a damn"... So, I'm sticking with "never give up, never surrender"

Hi Brian, I'm a lucky guy in that I think my parents were so worried about other things with me when I was young, that the last thing they worried about was the career choice. (And I don't think I'd have made it to Harvard law school anyway:)) My in-laws were a different situation though... But your post reminded me of a story: A couple years ago a went out to dinner with some families celebrating a high school academic decathlon meet. My daughter and most of her friends on the team went to the "communications" magnet school where they had a filmmaking program. Her friend Peter dreamed of becoming a filmmaker and begged his parents to let him attend this program. At the dinner, Peter's mom was so proud of her son because he had been admitted to a famous university and had finally given up on his "ridiculous dream" of becoming a filmmaker. Boy she was so happy, she was bragging about her son giving up his dream! (in front of him and his friends no less). A few minutes later (we had just met for the 1st time this evening) she asked my wife what I did for a living...I mumbled something about shooting movies I think... Brian, I've told this story kind of as a warning about over protective parents, but also because at the same time: IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE TO MAKE A LIVING IN THE MOTION PICTURE BUSINESS! You might not win an Oscar, and you might not become a DP (who knows where this journey may take you?) but thousands of people in the USA make a living in some part of this business. WHY NOT YOU? I went to a major Ivy League university and studied economics. After graduation I had no skill that would make me employable (ie. skill that would make money for someone else). I took a job as a busboy at a seafood restaurant. As I pondered what to do with my life, I had an epiphany: No matter what path I took, I would be starting at the very bottom. (I was already at the bottom of the restaurant business). And then it hit me: YOU CAN START AT THE BOTTOM OF ANY CAREER! Do your parents dream of you becoming a top defense attorney? CEO? scientist? If so you will start at the bottom. All careers of any interest are very competitive. And in all of them you will start at the very bottom so why not start at them bottom of the film industry? So the next time your parents talk to you about your career explain to them that virtually all careers involve starting at the bottom and they shouldn't get too discouraged that you are at the bottom of the film business. After all, thousands of people make a living in the movie business, and almost all of them not named Coppola started at the bottom too. Good luck Brian. Never give up, never surrender.

It's a nice camera, but it doesn't have a very wide lens and is noisy in low light. There's also a bit of delay while it focuses. I thought about it and ended up with a 5d and am very glad I did. (I use the 5d with non"L" primes and it's great in low light, like we shoot with for many scenes) FWIW, my lab didn't have any calibrated computer monitors to view anything I sent them, but I have some great stills for my own use...

I recently shot a film with a foreign crew on location. I asked the camera assistant, who had 38 years experience, not to use the hard mattes with the longer lenses (actually with any lens). He thought I was nuts and generally ignored my request because we were using prime lenses with small front elements I guess. One night I looked though the lens and all the out of focus street lights in the distance were rectangular. I couldn't understand it and thought it was because we were photographing them through a fence. I liked the effect of the out of focus lights though and added a couple of pen sized flashlights to the background, but these were not through the fence and they were rectangular as well. Then I saw the front of the camera. They had put the 60mm hard matte on for shooting with the 85mm lens I think. They assumed this was more than safe. I pulled the hard matte off and all the highlights became round as expected. The hard mattes to me do very little with a wide lens, and often impact the exposure of long lenses. I really only will use them for special occasions as they are usually just too close to the lens to be valuable. It's just my opinion, so don't yell at me:)

Many years ago I was asked to operate a feature on location with a low budget IA agreement. Keys were to be paid $12.00/hour(+health and welfare benefits) I ended up working on another feature where the UPM complained that he was putting my children through college (Steadicam...). The picture I turned down was nominated for an oscar(s). Go figure...You just never know. I can laugh now, but I didn't then:)

Continuity? Just go by eye and do your best...I'd worry more about telling a good story with pictures. If you're shooting in the prison in Santa Fe, be sure to visit the gas chamber and have a guard give you a historical "tour":) And I really liked the Blue Corn cafe restaurant down the street from the prison. Have a great trip!

Hi Thomas, Anything is possible. It will be however very difficult, even if you were 20 years old. There is no easy way unless you have a lot of money to produce your own films and hire yourself :) I don't know if my story is typical, but I started when I was 23 years old, went to a film school for a year (AFI) and worked for free until I learned enough skills that someone would pay me for work. That took about a year or so and then I was working as a 2nd assistant camera person. Even then, it took me about 2 years before I started to make enough money in the movies to support myself. I grew tired of camera assistant rather quickly and a friend suggested that we invest (then new specialty) in a Steadicam together. There were so few Steadicam operators at the time that I was able to establish a Steadicam career with very little experience. After 20 years of operating, I'm now a director of photography and have married and raised a family with my income from the film business. So I guess my advice is that if you really want to do this then you must have the attitude that nothing can stop you and that you will be prepared to make little or no money for a prolonged period (possibly years). In that time you will learn the skills that will make you valuable to filmmakers and hopefully meet people who will remember your great work attitude and skills and then you're on your way. I have heard more than one established cinematographer give the advice that to become a cinematographer, you should find a wife with a good job to support you for about a decade. Do the people who do it love it? I guess I'll put it this way: A long time ago :) I packed my things and drove across the country to LA to follow the same dream as you have. I figured, that I'm young, and will start at the bottom of any profession I choose. Why not try filmmaking? I can start at the bottom of filmmaking just as easily as the bottom of any business. This long journey has taken me to where I am now, sitting in the lobby of a hotel in Kiev, Ukraine having just completed my biggest adventure, working as Director of Photography on a Russian theatrical feature filmed in Georgia (the country, not the state) and having the unique experience of being the only non Russian on the cast or crew. So yes, I really love it and I can't think of any other occupation that would have provided this kind of adventure and my new friends from the other side of the globe. Pretty cool I think, but it's a long journey for me and it's not like just applying for a job at a company. It's more like running away to join the circus. Best of luck to you!

I recently purchased a DSLR for similar reasons. I'm shooting a film on location and dailies take at least a week to return to set so I thought I'd take stills as a substitute. I chose a Canon 5d for two reasons. 1, it has a full frame sensor. 2, there are many small sized prime lenses available for it at reasonable cost. The Nikon D3 was hard to find, was too expensive, and prime lenses were hard to find as well. I chose the primes because I don't like holding a big heavy lens and camera and I wanted the f2.0 stop. Here's what I've experienced: The stills are invaluable as dailies because the lab in Turkey makes really awful dailies. Worst I've ever seen, even though they are HD. The last set of dailies were ok until the scene with the red walls. Then all scenes since are cyan to make up for the red...but I can stay confident after looking at the stills. The LCD on the back of the camera is pretty useless for previewing lighting. It just never looks right and will fool you almost 100% of the time. Also I'm not sure the iris on my lenses is consistent from lens to lens and that can throw off exposure a little. All in all I've been very happy with the purchase with the exception of the 50mm 1.4 lens which has sticky focus and must be returned when I get home. I've also noticed that the lenses are much sharper than the 13mp sensor in the camera can record and would really have liked 22mp if it were available in an affordable and similar sized camera. Maybe in a couple years. As for Nikon vs. Canon, the line producer here shoots with a Nikon and says the files from my 5d look a little better, but I think the handling of the Nikon is a little nicer. I will say that the full sized viewfinder of the 5d makes manual focus a bit easier than the cropped camera viewfinders. If you get one of the cheaper cameras, the images are great, but the viewfinders fall short. That's about it, good luck. -bruce

The Viper is certainly the best imaging camera of the 3, but will be the most expensive due to the cost of renting the SRW Sony deck to record with. Post costs will also be higher. Of the Varicam and Sony, I like the Varicam camera a bit more for it's dynamic range, but the Sony f900 has a better recording deck. Even though the Varicam is "only" 720P vs 1080p for the Sony, the resolution of both cameras is pretty close in real world situations. It will be hard to tell the difference on a film out. A plus for the Varicam is that you can capture the tapes to Firewire drives and edit the native original footage in FCP just like mini-dv. I have seen projects shot on Sony and downcoverted for editing and an HD version is never completed due to the cost of the online session. Both these cameras will require some pretty good knowledge to set up for best imaging on the set. Exposure and camera setup will be very important. The Viper is much more forgiving for manipulating the image in post and will record a sharper image than the built in decks in the Varicam and Sony. The Viper is likely to cost much more to use though.

I haven't done this, but I would seriously consider shooting for b&w only. The reason is that in most HD cameras with compression, color is recorded at 1/2 or less resolution than than luminance. I would test by shooting with the camera connected to a monitor using analogue output and viewing the luminance channel only with the monitor set with the saturation down all the way. Experiment by using red, green, yellow filters on the camera as one would use when shooting b&w film. The hope is that you'll get your look all in the luminance channel at the full resolution of the camera. If you convert to b&w using the color channels you may find a decrease in resolution with compressed images on Varicam, Sony f-900 and other lower end HD cameras. Let us know how your test comes out and compare to shooting with full color and converting in software afterwards.

Many years ago the late George Folsey, ASC was the cinematography instructor at AFI. He used to tell a story about how he either invented and/or named the cookaloris. Unfortunately, I don't remember the story though I can remember a reference to the "high Cookaloris" from some children's story. Perhaps there is another AFI alumnus reading this who can recall the story?

I have an interpreter who has become more of a personal assistant than interpreter. Now that I think of it, I think every DP should have a personal assistant. Especially when on location. We'll have to bring this up in the next contract...My Gaffer speaks english well enough, as well as the director. The 1st AD can speak a little english, but enough for me to get my point across. I have learned about 20-30 words in Russian so far :) My camera operator doesn't speak much english, but understands pretty well also...and he is a very fine operator from Moscow. The most important reason for the interpreter is to maintain good relations with the actors and other crew members who can't speak any english, at least for me. And shooting digital is a good idea here. It takes me about a week to get dailies from Istanbul. Megan, enjoy your trip and make a great film! -bruce

Hi Megan, I'm in Batumi, Georgia right now shooting a Russian feature. Here's what I've experienced: Everyone will say everything is perfect with the equipment. It won't be. No one will tell you if something is missing, like ladders for the grip truck, a camera truck big enough for a (semi-major) feature film etc. I have no scrims for my lamps and almost no open faced nets of any kind. My equipment comes from Ukraine (by ship to Batumi on the Black Sea). Lighting and grip is from a bad film school. It can get frustrating. I would strongly suggest bringing a Gaffer from the US, if only to keep on top of the equipment list and make sure he/she has what he needs. My crew is from Moscow and Kiev (with a few from Georgia) so we work in the Russian system. Camera crews will not place actors marks or do the slate. This is the responsibility of the AD department and they will find the least experienced and cheapest people to do these jobs as they think it is dumb labor here :) Hey, I'm a guest in a foreign land working on a foreign film (I"m the only US person here, and the film is in Russian) and I'm learning to roll with the punches. On the plus side, people in Georgia are welcoming and generous beyond description. The food is very, very good as well, but limited in variety. Weather here changes very rapidly and rains a bit this time of year. What else can I tell you? I'm not sure, but I think you will love your time in Georgia. I'll be here till the end of May, so if you're in Batumi, drop me an email! If you're shooting later in the year, I might have some crew recommendations for you. Best of luck! -bruce alan greene dp - Kill the King

I think that some of the comments above are not exactly fair to Mr. Lumet. He is a truly successful director and I think we, as cinematographers, should take his opinions seriously, whether or not they are scientifically accurate, or whether we agree with them. Certainly, he was saying that on Dog Day Afternoon, and perhaps others, he felt he was limited to the look of film. He clearly did not want this film to look like a Kodak moment. And I think, technically, Mr. Lumet is correct when he implies that digital capture can produce a more color accurate image than film capture. Film is limited in it's accuracy, even when it looks wonderful. I think I got the impression from his remarks that he likes the workflow of digital much more than film. It can't be denied that, to a director, viewing a near final version of the image on the set has a certain appeal. It speeds the communication between the director and all departments, but especially the cinematographer. I often get the sense that some cinematographers fear this aspect of digital capture. It's as if the magic has been removed from the art when so many can express their opinion about the look, live on the set. I think it's really easier sometimes for cinematographers to get comments after dailies, removed from the moment of shooting. When it's live, everyone becomes a cinematographer. Video assist certainly did this to camera operating! Let's not forget that the "look of film" also includes: Streaky colors, scratches, shaking, mismatched framing in projection, too dark a screen, and even sometimes reels out of order...Sure film always looks impressive at the studio or the lab or some special 1st run theaters. But for may film goers, the local multiplex rules. Hopefully digital projection will improve vastly on this situation so that more film goers can enjoy the films as they were meant to be seen. And lastly, personally, I often find that I like the look of digital imagery. I like the lack of grain, the clean look, the color reproduction, and especially the ability to manipulate the image to my liking. I also like seeing a high resolution, color corrected preview on a monitor while I work. I think that's fun. But, before I get a reputation as a complete idiot, I like to shoot film as well though sometimes after working on a digital project, I feel like there's some smutz on the screen when watching a film :)

Thanks Dominic, It's been a while since I operated the shutter angle myself. Would a Moviecam compact or Arricam allow such a precise setting?

I'm going to be shooting a feature in a 50hz country. The director has told me that they would like to shoot at 24fps. My concern is with any 50hz flickering lights. I suppose I can have our generator set to 60hz perhaps and I can ask for, but I'm not sure I'll receive flickerless ballasts for HMI lights. But there may be some practical lights I will have no control over. Is there a shutter angle that will enable safe shooting of 50hz lights at 24fps? Thanks so much for your help. -bruce

Jonathan, I don't think it's fair to say it's the Canon glass on the DSLR, especially if your friend is using the 24-70L zoom. Contrast here is most likely the result of the camera settings or RAW image processing on the computer. In other words, it's the choice of the photographer, and not the lens quality. That said, the Canon zooms I've used on 16mm Arrifilexes I don't believe were designed as cine lenses originally, but I used it because of the 7mm wide end of the zoom. I think that the lenses were adapted from ENG video lenses and re-housed for movie use. But I would add that the 10-100mm ziess zoom was no champion of contrast and sharpness compared to the ziess prime lenses either. As for the DSLR lenses, the manufacturers don't seem that interested in creating prime lenses like the cooke s4's or the ziess cine lenses, probably due to lack of demand for large, expensive, and heavy prime lenses. Their zoom's can be quite good, but to me anyway, don't ever match the "punch" of the cine primes, but they don't weigh as much as a cine 5-1 or 10-1 zoom :rolleyes: