Brian Rose

A student cameraman died filming Notredame's football practice, when the hydraulic "cherrpicker" from which he was shooting toppled over. The article says there were wind gusts of 50 MPH. It's a tragedy, but I can't help thinking he or someone else should've exercised more caution give the conditions. I for one sure has hell wouldn't have positioned myself on an unsecured structure in such windy conditions! I suspect someone's gonna be held liable for this one... Accident Claims Cameraman

I'm really hoping this means he and Pfister have convinced them to shoot on large format. An all Imax affair would be amazing, although I'd have to do some driving to a 15/70 theatre, since all the ones around me are now Liemax.

For a split second, I thought the camera on the link was for SALE for 3,000. Silly of me, but still, a guy has to dream...

There's a new interview with Chris Nolan, which is previewed in the LA Times. In it he discusses the title of the new Batman film, and according to the writer, reveals this: Nolan was most eager to talk about the fact that Warner Bros. had agreed with his argument that the film should resist the current 3-D craze and instead use high-definition approaches and IMAX cameras to strike out on a different cinematic path than the stereoscopic technology that, for better or worse, has become the dominant conversation in the blockbuster sector. Have Nolan and Pfister won over Warner Brothers? Could we see the third Dark Knight shot in ALL LARGE FORMAT? The article is more of a preview, and says there is more to come, especially relating to Nolan's format choices. Here's a link to the whole piece: LA Times Article Until the longer article comes out, I'll be holding my breath with anticipation! BR

James you're right, and I just finished sending him my feedback on the script. I figured I owed it to him to give an honest appraisal, and made him aware of all he was in for if he tried to make the film as is, with the resources he had. I just hope it takes it the right way. For being some of the hardest, most brutal (physically, emotionally, psychologically) forms of expression out there, the cinema sure draws more than its share of neophytes who just can't handle the criticism that comes with the process, and get defensive. The lure of instant fame and fortune is a strong one... BR

I wish I had a more romantic tale, like the first time I saw [insert Oscar winner, or classic film, or sci-fi epic] but the year that changed my life was 2001, and the movie was Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor was something I had studied for years. I could name every ship and carrier, and the captains and the timeline, and even built models. Needless to say, I knew my stuff. So I was appalled at how awful the movie was, from a historical standpoint as well as a storytelling one (Ben Affleck takes a freaking train to Great Britain!) When I left that theatre, I said to myself, "I could do something better." Cocky, yes, but I was just a dumb high schooler. The important thing was I started writing scripts, then shooting some films. I discovered how much I enjoyed documentaries, and how much I loved running camera. And now I work as a cameraman and make documentary films. So I guess I owe my career to the mediocrity that is Michael Bay!

Coming on the heels of last weeks call I got, asking to work for free and loan my gear to shoot a commercial that was SURE to win a contest in which I would then win half of the $100K prize, I get a call today from a director wanting to make a short film. Fair enough. He says he has no money, and is wondering if I can do it pro-bono. M'kay. The script for this film which he has no money to make has fantasy creatures, and locations ranging from crowded high schools and shopping malls to mystical evergreen forests, not to mention a seemingly feature length sized cast and lotsa extras. Ummm.... And that's not the worst of it: The director has cerebral palsy. It was so hard to understand him on the phone that I wasn't sure if I was getting a prank call at first. This project has failure written all over it, but jeez, do I have to break the truth to a guy with cerebral palsy too? I never thought I'd see the day my gig digitizing home videos would be appealing by comparison! BR

I just watched this one. As a portrait of religious zealotry it's downright terrifying...yet I have to admit, I'd sure love to see those two completed shots...65mm showscan! Say what you will about the man, but he has damn fine taste in image formats! :)

Awesome John, I appreciate it! PM or email: brrfilm@gmail.com

Alas no. They're Century JJ 35/70 dual purpose. I'm trying to book some time to tour the facilities to see for myself what the state of it is. I was told over the photo that these projectors need just about everything, since they've only been used for 35mm. We're talking rollers, gates, aperture plates, lenses, 70mm DTS reader, and possibly even the mag head. I'm hoping this is mistaken and perhaps they're stored away, but if they were bought as is, with the intent of 35mm only, they may have let the rest go by, by. It's definitely going to be some work, that's for sure. But just the fact that they have 70mm capable projectors in place with a DTS sound system is half the battle, and I never thought I'd even be at this point, so I'm remaining cautiously optimistic! Best, BR

While 70mm projection has ceased to exist in my area for a decade at least, I have found a theatre with a pair of 70mm projectors which it has upto now been using for 35mm. I'm thrilled by the prospect of revitalizing their setup, and bringing back some 70mm films to screen! If you have experience with 70mm projection, please PM me. I'd love to seek some advice! Best, BR

Exactly. Bolexes are the worst...you gotta practically check the serial number to verify your model type, because it could be 133 or 145. And of course, this is important if you're using any camera with a variable shutter. BR

I swear by this meter in my work, and it's quite simple to use. You just need to know your shutter angle and frame rate, and you can calculate the shutter speed for the meter, via this formula: (FPS X 360)/Shutter Angle So with a shutter angle of 180 degrees and a frame rate of 24: (24 x 360)/180 = 8640/180 = 48 Your shutter speed is the inverse (1/48). My spot meter goes in multiples: 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, which is a little off for 1/48. HOWEVER, on the inside of the cover for the battery compartment, there is a handy chart that offers conversion numbers that advise you how to compensate in your f-stops. BR

Because the most important thing in a film is getting "that depth of field look"

I believe film will endure as a CAPTURE medium, both because it remains fairly future resistant, and it poses far fewer questions of preservation and archivability than current digital forms which, to survive, must be seemingly transferred from an old medium to a new one to stay current with the latest technology. I do believe mainstream film projection is dying fast, and will be relegated to art houses, museums and centers dedicated their exhibition. Even these will eventually pass, I believe, as prints become scarcer, and as projection catches up to the quality of the source medium (I dream of 8 or 12K projection!). My solution, my honest advice for Kodak? Push, push, push 65mm as an acquisition format. It is bar none the most future resistant format available, needing a minimum of 8K to fully resolve...surely enough to endure once HD has been surpassed by Ultra HD, and whatever replaces it. Talking generations. It reduces to 35mm, can be blown up to Imax, and when scanned for HD will be lush, crisp, and grain free, and most pleasing to audiences. The costs of shooting 65mm over 35mm are negligible when faced with a 100 million dollar budget, and I think any studio shooting one of their epics is CRAZY not to go for the added insurance of 65!

Adrian, That's how I played it. I said he really needed to shoot in high def, which I don't own at the time, but I left the door open by offering grip/glidecam gear if he could find an HD camera. So we'll see if I hear back. BR

Yeah, that's where I'm stumped. I asked because I got a call from a fellow who found my name through the local film commission. He wants to shoot a commercial for a contest being held by Doritos. He's convinced he can win it (100K first prize) and has offered to split it with me 50/50. The obvious problems with this aside, I'm just wondering what he seriously hopes to accomplish if I'm the only other person working the film (at least, the one he's willing to divy up the phantom dough with). And in exchange he needs the usual: me to supply the gear, work on it, etc., etc., it's an opportunity, and I'll be asking others, so let me know soon if you want in. Really, every warning bell is going off in my head. But it IS an opportunity, and EVERY director has a bit of that mad ambition in him. It's sorting out the 20 deluded ones from the one who has legitimate vision, y'know? When I last spoke with him, I left the door open, but I doubt I'll be doing it. BR

As a young up and (hope to be) comer, I could use some advice when it comes to taking gigs, namely, non-paying ones. I see an important part for non-paid work...it offers new challenges not yet encountered, offers a chance to add to the demo reel, and most of all, is an opportunity that could open doors to new professional relationships and paid work in the future. And it's that last part that gets me. I'm hyperaware of the fact that any one project could be THE ONE that gets your name out there, that launches your career (or at least primes it). I wonder if that next project, be it a short or feature, could do for me what "Memento" did for Pfister, or "Slacker" for Lee Daniel, or "A Matter of Life and Death" for Jack Cardiff. Of course, that is also a big, big what if. Odds are far more likely that the gig will be just that...another gig, another baby step forward, if at all. And for every decent filmmaker who has everything EXCEPT money, there are five or ten more who are total deadbeats looking for handouts. I wanna take every opportunity that comes my way, but I know I can't, both because I can't do all my work for free, and because there are a lotta deadbeats out there who just want to use you for free to make a product that comes out crummy due to bad acting, script, yadda, yadda, yadda. So for both young DPs and experienced ones, how did you decide which non-paying projects did you accept and which do you reject? Do you have a criteria, or informal rule when it comes to someone needing a DP, but can't pay? Or do you just straight up refuse it? What is the balance between the need for thinking in the short term (i.e., work to keep the lights on and cover the rent) and the long term (the project that might not pay now, but could pay in the FUTURE)? As always, your advice is most appreciated! Best, BR

Well, if money isn't an issue, then I'd go for Panavision System 65! :) But to answer YOUR question, the Panavision 35mm, just because I've never shot 35, and I've CERTAINLY not shot Panavision, and I'd die to shoot both!

1) "Burden of Dreams" Les Blank's documentary on the making of Werner Herzog's "Fitzcarraldo" 2) "Sherlock, Jr." Okay, it's not about movie making, but it's one of the earliest, and one of the best movies to deconstruct filmmaking. Buster Keaton at his apex. 3) "Man Bites Dog" Remy Belvaux's brilliant pre-"Blair Witch" mockumentary that explores the role of a filmmaker in his own work.

And heavy too! There is a shot in "A Matter of Life and Death" that never really gets discussed, but it amazing in its mastery: a long, unbroken take shot from the patient's POV on a hospital gurney as it is wheeled through a long hallway to the OR room. blows my mind how they pulled that off with such a massive camera...and it seems like it's just floating along! BR

That's great Richard! You have to promise to tell us once the ink is dried.

Almost one year ago, I got fired from my job at a production company. I had little savings, having just finished college, hardly any gear of my own, and not enough experience (I believed) to compete with all the other freelancers working in my city. I was in pretty bad shape. Never self-destructive, but there were a few nights in bed when I prayed that I wouldn't wake up the next morning. I wrote about my fears and anxieties on this board, and the replies were a real lifeline. It helped to see how many people who I respected and admired for their skills were once like me, and survived. I've managed to do the same. It's been hard. For every good gig, there are five that are bad, or worse, boring. When camera work is hard to come by, I make extra transferring people's old tapes to DVD. Tedious as hell, and I hate doing it, but it's money. Do I wish things were better? Sure. Can't help looking at friends who are traveling, buying houses, enjoying life, and alternately hating them for their success, or myself for not doing better. But it's all got my resolve redoubled. Next year I WILL shoot my next documentary, even if I have to go into debt to do it. Because I refuse to do the work I've been doing longer than I have to. Life's too short, and I'm determined to make just one film that will matter. So that's where I'm at. Now, I'd like to flip it around. How are all of YOU doing this past, challenging year? And if I haven't said it enough before, thanks to everyone on this wonderful, lifesaving forum! BR

Yeah, it would seem to me that as long as a picture is shot on film, it'll need a negative cutter, if for nothing else, for the sake of archival purposes. Suppose they want to take it out to do a new scan when the technology changes. They'd have to have a cut, conformed neg, or else they'd face having to track down the individual shots and rescan and combine them! No, cutters will be around as long as film is, there's just gonna be fewer and fewer of them :(

Uh-oh, now we've got a Mexican standoff!