Bruce Greene

There's tech to learn in both film and digital. I've shot both formats, for movies and still photography. I do find that I have more control over the process when shooting digital capture for movies. I can see a pretty good representation of (a possible) final result live on the set and know that I've shot the image that I intended. Also, this live representation is a huge time saver in that I don't need to review yesterdays work in great detail, as I've seen it live. When working 14 hours or more shooting each day, I don't need to add another hour to the day reviewing all the dailies. Shooting film seems simpler, as there are only shutter speed, shutter angle, and iris settings on the camera to think about. No menus to learn! But the real tech is in how to light and expose the film, and this requires a huge amount of experience and testing. One actually needs to learn how to properly use a light meter, both incident and reflected and come to a judgement of how much light is desired and how to set the iris accordingly. Sure, to learn a digital camera one also needs to learn the camera, menus, and take the footage through the color correction process to really see how the camera responds. I guess what I'm saying is that digital and film require a pretty similar level of technical knowledge and that neither process is really simpler or easier than the other. With a digital camera there are more buttons and menus on the camera, but the work learning the process to a professional level is pretty similar to film capture. And today, with digital scanning of film, one needs to be familiar with both the film capture and the digital post process to really understand how to create the final image. So you need to learn both digital and film technologies!!! ? ? ?

Cleaning vinyl records is not always so easy. I have a small record collection and some of the records have been dirty since they were brand new. The crap in the grooves can be really stuck and not so easy to clean. And tap water can leave residue which sounds really bad. I think if you are washing your records you should use distilled water, a tiny bit of soap, and a good brush that can reach deep in the grooves. And maybe some Photo Flo solution (just a few drops) in the rinse. Test first on a record you don't mind ruining! I have a digital capture software called "Vinyl Studio" that after digitizing the record has some good tools to help remove unwanted sound from the digital recording. It can be quite effective actually. You'll also need an analog to digital capture device to digitize your records. In the end, I find it near impossible to tell the difference between my digital captures of vinyl records from the original vinyl recordings, though I'm sure, true vinyl purists will say otherwise ?

The link works if one copies and pastes it. ? If it were me, with minimal lighting equipment and crew, I would forgo the idea of rigging soft boxes and use as much of the available lighting as possible. Negative fills might be a good idea. I would also look for some small LED battery powered lights that I could hide on the set to add some punch and dimension to the existing lighting. Maybe even tape or mount something to the ceiling if it could be kept out of frame. If you are moving with the actors through these sets, you might think about mounting the small LED light on to a boom pole and have it move with the actor, if it helps or is necessary. Given that there is not so much lighting one can do with such minimal resources, I would concentrate on camera placement, framing, and blocking to create this story and the drama that the script calls for. Using the existing lighting in a way frees you to create frames without the limitation of keeping lighting equipment out of the frame. And with that freedom, you can move the camera almost anywhere without limitations. Don't also forget that there is much one can also add to the look via digital color correction as well. And don't forget that you can remove some of the existing light bulbs to create more mood. So bring a nice ladder with you! So, go out and have fun, and don't worry too much ?

It looks to me like a mount for the CP (cinema products) 16mm camera. And it says "cinema products" right on the lens mount ?

I watched "Rashomon" again last night. I hadn't seen it for almost 40 years. Yes, it looks a little bit dated now in it's style, but it sure is an effective film, with much of the story told without dialog. More interesting to me, is that I realized that I've used many of the techniques over the years, without even remembering the source. As for the "great classics" in general, sure many have a theatrical look these days compared to current styles, but one doesn't need to replicate the theatrical lighting styles to learn from the photographic and story telling techniques. A powerful story or image is still a powerful story and image today. And what a loss to miss the joy of watching many of the great old films! And even "Citizen Kane", it's not just the story or the lighting of this picture. Watch the blocking and staging, it's very powerful. I recently shot an indie film and I'm kind of disappointed in the editing I've seen so far. It's all cut showing the close ups for the dialog, but I worked hard to block and stage the wide shots to tell the story, and this is now just an afterthought apparently. Yes, the picture looks "modern", if you will, but we've lost something very valuable that I learned from the classics...

I would think that blurring highlights in post is only usually done when there is some issue with the camera original capture clipping highlights in an unnatural way. I've not usually found any need for this, but I have used a "glow" filter, that kind of mimics a promist filter on the camera, to spread the highlights a bit, but it's a different effect than blurring highlights.

I'm using the Omnishot device ( think that's who made it?) and it works very well.

Well, yes and no. Way way back, before I was in the Union, and the Union was closed to new members, I would sometimes get hired on Union shows. Once I worked on a couple famous shows, productions stopped asking if I was in the Union. But, sometimes, there would be a snitch and production would be forced to terminate my employment. I would have joined the Union, but it was closed at the time and was near impossible to join. But the real issue, is that one is not on the Hollywood "Industry Experience Roster". And this is now open to non union members who meet certain qualifications (each craft has their own rules though). If you qualify, and that might mean working for 100 days in your classification within 3 years, and have proof of such work (checks/timecards/call sheets), then you can go to the "Contract Services Administration" (not a Union organization) and get on the Roster. Then, you are eligible for Union work hire, but don't need to join the Union until you've worked 30 days. Once you've worked 30 days, or just decide to join the Union (and you should!), then you will be responsible for the large initiation fee plus quarterly dues(about $1000/year), plus 1% of your Union earnings as dues. The Union has payment plans for the large initiation fees so you will not need thousands of dollars up front. The bottom line though is, if you're not on the Roster, you are not eligible for hire on a Union contracted show. And to maintain one's Roster status, you'll be required to take many on-line safety courses as well. So, it's best to start this process now if you want to work on Union contracts. I don't believe there is a fee to join the Roster.

The "noise" you speak of Neal... is why I don't like to operate the camera myself when shooting a picture. I really want to be near the director and video village to help direct all the noise ?

Regarding "muddy" looking digital finishes from scanned film... When I scan film for still photographs, I always find it necessary to add some electronic "detailing" to bring the image to life. In the olden days, when I still shot movies on film, there was a strong reluctance in the post houses to add "detailing" to film scans, and the result was kind of muddy. This might have had something to do with the 2k scans. They just felt "dead" looking. I think a very small amount of digital detailing can really bring these scans to life, and I think nowadays, you might find less resistance to using this technique. I think if you want to shoot 16mm for a digital finish, you should make a short test and see how you like adding some detail in the color correction. I think you might just find it to your liking ?

I haven't shot with the Amira, but I've shot a lot with the Alexa. I've never noticed excessive noise or grain when shooting at ISO 800, unless the clip has been underexposed. I suspect somehow that you are underexposing your footage. I can only ask, how are you determining the proper exposure? Are you using a light meter? Exposing by eye in the viewfinder? Something else?

Timecode?

On my windows HP z820, I use an internal RAID 0 with 4 drives (16TB total). If you can't do this in your machine, you will need a RAID controller card and external drive bay to build the RAID. Since I have not redundancy in my RAID, if one drive fails, all is lost. So, I keep a back up on large USB drives, just in case of emergency, for all the camera originals. These days, if I want to spend the money, I could build a RAID of SSD drives, or just place 4 large SSD drives instead of the RAID. And, if I start to grade 4k+ RAW material, I might just need to do this.

I think the answer is, if you are shooting in the U.S., check with the audio post people (if they've been selected before the shooting begins!) about which frame rate they prefer. There is really no technical reason not to shoot 24fps these days, but the audio post guys often prefer to stick with the old 23.976fps rate, perhaps because their sound fx libraries are in 23.976fps. It's also important for everyone in the post workflow to understand that the frame rate needs to be exactly the same. I once shot a film at 23.98 and the transcodes were done to 24fps by adding a duplicate frame every 501 frames (I think). During color correction we started noticing the duplicate frames, and of course, that often put sound out of sync by a frame or two on a long take. In the end, the error needed to be corrected in editorial, and the entire film needed to be re-conformed. And yes, there are some, usually "prosumer" cameras that shoot 23.98 when the camera is set to 24fps. It's best to shoot a test, download the clip, and open in editing software to confirm the true shooting frame rate before filming begins.

For me, dreaming... I'm not so much dreaming of film or digital capture. I'm dreaming of a great script with a visionary director and most importantly: The time to shoot it properly!!!!

Proper light metering would require me to write a chapter here, which I'm not going to do ? I'm sure you can google some great articles on line. That said, to use the incident meter, one need not be close to the subject, but one must read the light somewhere where the light is at the same level as the subject. For landscape type shots, a reflective meter is much more valuable as you need to read the sky, then maybe a person in a shadow, and through experience determine a correct exposure for the effect you want. In other words, light meters do not give you the correct exposure. The photographer, using the data from the light meter, determines the correct exposure by their experience and knowledge of the capture medium. So... There's no easy answer I'm afraid. For me, I usually use my incident meter for lighting the set and roughing in the light levels. It also helps me communicate with the gaffer about the level of light that I require for the scene. With digital capture, especially, I adjust the fine light levels by eye, and using a monitor and or waveform display of the simulated final output of the scene. When shooting day exteriors, where access to a good monitor is not practical, I often use the incident meter to rough in a camera exposure that I know will be in the correct ball park for color correction later. For high contrast landscape type exteriors, I will sometimes pull out my spot meter to measure different parts of the frame and determine an exposure that way. I do have years of experience using spot meters and incident meters for film photography, so I have a pretty good feel for it now ?

It is quite difficult to get smooth motion by speeding up 24fps originals to play back as if it were shot at 21 fps. To do this, one must eliminate 3 frames every second. And those missing frames will show an obvious jump of action. There are frame blending techniques in post to try to smooth this out, but it doesn't always look good. Shooting a 21fps original means that there will be equal time between each frame/exposure and the motion will play back smoothly, although it's still possible that viewers will perceive the cheat and the effect can look fake. Our brains are very sensitive to the look of gravity and "fast motion" capture can hit us as fake, depending on the type of action.

Practical lamps can work... if your subject is close enough to them. Generally, I make use of practicals, but almost always augment them with something else, otherwise, the practical lamps can overwhelm the scene. I do though, light for digital capture at much higher contrast ratios than I used to use with film/analog finish. With a digital color correction, I find that I can use a bit more of dynamic range than I could get away with in the olden film days ?

Why not lower your ISO setting by half. 800 to 400 maybe. Using this method, you can view your dark image on set and have room for color correction later. I wouldn't rely on false color graphs for your facial exposures unless you are shooting in full sunlight perhaps.

Strange. I believe I posted this comment in a different discussion. But now, I don't remember which one it was!

I see that this discussion has finally devolved to it's appropriate place. Humor. Bravo!!!

In general, when I’m faced with shooting in a dark club with low ceilings, I find the solution is to place lights ... in the shot. sometimes this involves placing lights on the walls or bar to simply define the space, without lighting the room. These can be decorative rope lights, Christmas lights, light tubes, and practical table lamps and neon signs. For back lighting I sometimes use small Dedo lights hung right in the frame. A few weeks ago I used extension sockets to hang small 25w lamps from built in can lights on the ceiling of the location. For lights to light actors, I try to hide tiny LED lamps where ever I can, and only then, a little fill, if necessary using movie lights from out of frame.

My gut feeling is that if you want to become a cinematographer, then you should just start selling yourself as a cinematographer. As someone who first worked as a Steadicam op for many years before moving to DP, when you make the change, it will be like starting all over again. At least that was my experience. If you want to work as an AC or lighting technician first, that will get you some good "on set" experience, which will be helpful. But I don't suggest spending many years at it as you will gain family and financial responsibilities and it may become more difficult to to make any changes. Best wishes for success and... Never give up, never surrender!

I think this might have something to do with the digital capture, which is more "accurate" vs. film. Film tends to move most flesh tones towards a middle flesh tone, while digital capture tends to show every color of the skin, often in it's "redish" glory. It's not uncommon with digital capture to shoot a 2 shot, where one face looks normal and the second face looks more like a lobster, even though they are in the same lighting. I certainly noticed this effect when shooting on the old RED 1 cameras... So Tyler, I guess we actually agree ?

Well, there is also lighting to consider. On my last project we used an Alexa Mini. I like to work with a low light level, especially in certain locations where I'm using a bit of the practical lighting. If I were to have shot on film, my lighting units would need to have been at least 2 times more powerful and that would have severely effected both the style of the film and the time it took to shoot it. And with an 18 day schedule, that's tight indeed. And so the result doesn't look like film :), but it looks very good and was about the best we could do within our budget. The price of camera rental and film stock, even if it equaled the price of the digital capture, would still be beyond our resources. Lastly, as a colorist who has worked with both film and digital capture, I've never noticed that I need fewer power windows with a digital capture. In general, I will use as many power windows and secondary adjustments as the time allows. My biggest challenge in the past with color correcting digital movies are strong IRND filters that all have different color casts. Cameras such as the Alexa Mini, with their built in ND filters have eliminated this issue for the most part, and the shots usually line up quite nicely. And second lastly :), it's getting harder nowadays to find focus pullers who are good at focusing by distance, and not by eye! And this sometimes drives me a little crazy, even when shooting with a digital camera...