Brian Rose

But unless I've missed something, shooting on film was a class requirement. That should be laid out when you sign up for the course in terms of financial responsibility outside of costs of tuition for the course, and certainly in the syllabus. If she wasn't going to be financially able to fulfill the requirements of the class, she shouldn't have signed up. Instead, she put off doing the research and when she realized she was in trouble, she comes to us for advice on how to cheat. Frankly I hope she flunks. It'll be a valuable lesson.

I don't know where to begin. Speaking as someone who was a film student, as well as an educator and now a working professional, what you're asking from us is how to engage in deceiving your professor, how to cut corners, cheat on an assignment and get a leg up on all your classmate who are fulfilling the assignment. All because you were unprepared and didn't have the damn sense to do some research or pick up the phone and talk to a bloody lab before you got yourself in this deep. Your request is HIGHLY, HIGHLY unethical, and an offense for which you could automatically fail the class or even get expelled. It appalls me that you don't have the presence of mind or the integrity to realize just what it is you're trying to do. You're trying to forge an assignment! How is that any different from stealing from a paper, or making up fake results on a lab test, or reading crib notes on the bottom of your shoe? As a graduate assistant, I've busted kids for less than what you are trying to do...they had only failed to cite their work properly. You're trying to fabricate and misrepresent, which is the highest academic offense. People have lost careers over this kind of thing. Honestly, if I were your professor, I'd flunk your a** right now, and you better hope to God they haven't heard of cinematography.com, or doesn't have the common sense to use Google, because they only have to search for your name, to find your post here, and then you'd be screwed, no? And more and more I wonder if Aubrey is even your real name, or if you've tried to cover your tracks assuming your professor might google. If so, it would have joined Cinematography under false pretenses which is an insult to us, and shows the depths of your guile. Either way, I don't have a lot of respect for you right now. I mean, how couldn't you know what you were in for? It's there when you sign up for the course. They always lay out what is expected of the students. Did you not read the syllabus? And you only now bothered to figure out film is expensive? Well no poop Sherlock. I'd say you're about to learn a very valuable lesson in why you shouldn't procrastinate this kind of stuff. And where's your ingenuity? Why don't you apply all this thought you've given to cheating into how to make a film on the budget you have? You can buy short ends. You can even get free stock from Kodak. I've done it all the time...they're more than glad to supply test film. Or set up a request for funds. Or talk to your professor. Or ask for help. Or pawn your bloody digital camera for film stock. You have SO MANY options, and yet you've cheated yourself and your classmates by going the lowest route: deception. And even after you get advise from some of the best guys working today, even from a member of the holiest of holys, the ASC, you still just b*tch and moan about how you can't do it, and you're getting overwhelmed, and you just want to cheat. Well shut the hell up already and figure out a way. I'm sorry but your request really pisses me off. I, and all of us here, have worked our asses off to get where we are. I for one saved all my money for film gear and stock. No partying, no booze and coffee. Even then, there were times when my bank account dipped into double digits. When I won an ipod for a film I made, I sold it to buy film stock. I made two features and twice as many shorts in three years of school. All funded by myself. When I came up short, I wrote essays for contests to make more money. I worked throughout all of my holiday breaks even for more money. I worked my way through school so I could graduate without debt. And when I got laid off from my first production job, I worked two years as a freelancer before I found steady work again. And here you are, unable to even complete a simple assignment without trying to cheat and cut corners, and asking us to help you do it. Well I won't do it. I'm really tempted to figure out what school you're at so I can inform your professor what you're up to. Because people like you are an insult to the craft and should be given the boot. You cheapen the school and the achievements of everyone who goes there and puts in honest labor. You know what? Quit. Now. You have no business being in this profession. If this assignment is too much for you, there's no way in hell you'll make it in the real world where you've got to scrap for every paying gig. You're wasting your time and ours. Go find something else more suited to your ambitions and your work ethic, or lack thereof. And do this board a favor and remove this insulting thread you started. And while you're at it, remove yourself from here until you are willing to act with the same sense of ethics and integrity that every other artisan on this board possesses. (signed) Brian R. Rose Filmmaker

The look is supposed to be pretty specific, and I'm using period glass from the 60s to 70s. I've got a few primes that'll do 1.7, thought I'd like to avoid going that far down if at all possible...although beggars cant be choosers, so I'll take that over pushing to 800 surely.

Hi All, I'm going to be shooting some 16mm soon at a track meet, for a documentary I'm beginning production on. It's a night meet, in a stadium with stadium lighting, but unfortunately I won't have time to do camera tests prior to the event. So I'm forced to just anticipate and see. I'm wondering if there are those of you out there who have shot under stadium lighting, who know about what I should be prepared for in terms of shooting speed. I'm planning on shooting with the Orwo 400 ASA black and white. I think this should be enough for my aims, but I wasn't sure if I should contemplate push processing to 800? For what it's worth, here in an image of the stadium where I'll be filming, shot at night with the lights on so you can see the configuration. Your expertise would be so appreciated! Stadium Lights Best, BR

I think I'll watch "Modern Times" Thing I love about that film is The Tramp is the perpetual loner, and in his final appearance on film, he finally gets to walk off down the road with SOMEONE beside him. Gets me every time.

Yeah man, buying a camera is, pardon my french, for suckers. Unless you have a revenue stream in place to help pay for that camera, you're much better off renting. Especially for film. Are you honestly going to shoot enough days in a row to justify buying over renting? And film gear is cheap now to rent. Places are getting rid of them left and right. They're desperate to rent, and you can leverage that to your advantage. Hell, some guys who own their own cams might even be willing to loan if it means they get to do some DPing, and run a bit of film. Explore your options, tap into those connections, and seriously. Don't. Buy.

I admit mixed feelings this year. I thought surely by 27 I'd have met SOMEBODY. 27 years and never had a girlfriend. There's something wrong with that. What the heck is wrong with me??? Thank god for my work. So my Valentines will be doing the best I can on the job, and then working more on my personal projects. Someday I'll make a film that'll be really special, and then maybe I'll find that someone who'll give this dweeb a day in court :/ How about you all?

Well Karl, you can take this to the bank. I'm going to start shooting my new doc this year, and I'm gonna shoot as much of it as money allows on 16mm. I was considering the Orwo film you've so helpfully advised in the past, given they've got their North American site up, but I'm thinking would I be more patriotic to buy American, and shoot double-x?

Ditto K.M. I could care less about some big time director or DP talking about how great film is. It's like a Russian tycoon saying that he'll always prefer rolls royce. Their worldview is completely unrelatable to that of 99.9 percent of all filmmakers. Kodak needs to figure out how to reach to THOSE filmmakers if it wants to save its hide. Believe me people would LOVE to shoot on film if there was a more affordable streamlined workflow. Hell that's what half of the digital revolution has been, trying to imitate the look of film (which drives me nuts when they sing the praises for some new gadget because the depth of field is so shallow the subject has to stand perfectly still or they'll fall out of focus!) As is the process is so damned convoluted. Buying the film, finding a lab and dealing with them and getting a telecine or an HD and all that. For starters, how about a package deal, like they used to do in the old days when the cost of processing was included in the cost of consumer film. How about they partner with some labs, so when I buy the film, I'm set, just have to shoot it, and send it off for processing and telecine?

It is for that exact reason this film fails for me. I'm tired of capital-B Beautiful imagery. Too much and it desensitizes you just as with violence and gore. And now with the proliferation of high quality, low price cameras, it is so easy in the hands of so many. I am sick of beautiful sunsets and clouds and horizons and vistas that are gorgeous but utterly empty. It is cinematic junkfood, empty calories that does not nourish. I now marvel more at the beauty that arises from functional cinema. Consider Days for Heaven, long regarded for its stunning magic hour shots. Yet many overlook a key factor to the success of that visual style, that it was not done for its own sake, but because it functioned within the story. These laborers enjoyed their moments of rest at dawn and dusk. So it made perfect sense that so much of the movie would be lit as such. But more and more I feel that Malick has internalized that reputation for georgeous imagery, and has sought to supply it, but to the detriment of the maxim of form following function. There were some great shots in Tree of Life, but they was also way too much that was purely in it for its own sake, purely Capital B Beautiful Captital Cinematography. I have far more respect for the work of DPs courageous enough to not want to show off their artistry, but instead wield it like a precision instrument to serve the story. Guys like Jeff Cronenwith or Eric Steelberg or David Mullen whose work serves the story and never tries to steal the show. Sadly, for the same reason they are so good, they will likely not be recognized, because like a Thomas Kinkaide painting, the Academy voters love themselves some purdy sunsets and clouds.

in order from Least to Best Schiffman: another example of shooting in color and converting to black and white. A cowardly decision. Shoot in real black and white. Why are you afraid of grain? Grain is supposed to be there. That's the point of art direction and proper lighting...for an adequate contrast ratio to fool the eye. Demerits in my book. Richardson: I effin hate the whole orange/teal fad. It's lazy, conventional and borderline cliche. Lubzeki: He'll probably win, but it won't be for best cinematography, but prettiest cinematography...which is usually what wins in this category I suppose. I saw nothing cinematographically that I hadn't seen in a hundred wedding videos or nat geo docs. Not to mention a fair bit of footage was licensed stock. Kaminski: continuing to operate in his comfort zone by overlighting the highlights. Nothing has changed since Schindler's List. I tire of every Spielberg film now looking basically the same...though the John Ford inspired lighting for the end sequence was a winner. He'd be my runnerup. And the winner? Jeff Cronenwith: His work does not call attention to itself. It served the story and created a wonderful sense of atmosphere. The weather was a character unto itself, and it is the DP who gives it life. Not to mention, he pulled this off after being brought it as a relief pitcher, and had a very short learning curve before jumping right into production. That takes chops. Should win: Cronenwith Will win: Lubzeki (with a sigh)

For my next planned doc, I'm considering shooting on film. It's a biopic of a living individual, and his interview is the heart of the story. Think "Fog of War." At this point I'm merely considering, because film poses a few problems with an interview heavy film...you'll burn through stock fast, not to mention processing and all the rest. I figure, the only way I can make film work without completely shooting my budget to hell is to utilize the older practice of pre-interviewing the subject, and using this as the basis for how I direct the line of questioning, to focus the content to get all the choicest tidbits on film for the A-material. But this also poses some problems. One, does it threaten spontaneity? I've had a lot of luck with letting the subject just free-associate for the camera, and while it winds up with 3 hour interviews, I get some great bits from it that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise if I had a heavily pre-planned set of questions with already anticipated responses. And then of course there is the issue of redundancy. If one preinterviews, why the hell not just shoot the preinterview on an HD camera and be done with it? I honestly don't know. So have any of you had experience with preinterviewing? What were your thoughts? Pros? Cons? Thanks! BR

I'm so fed up with the technological arms race going right now with cameras, as well as the crappy 5D aesthetic, and just ever so want to shoot my next doc in 16mm black and white as a big fat eff you to tech obsessed who are ruining the cinema craft. But as I start adding up the costs of stock, process and telecine...suddenly the 5D looks appealing. Son of a bitch.

All, At the production company where I find myself employed, one of my duties is data management and archiving. The company I work for has grown slowly, but lately begun to accelerate in expansion, which is great, though we now find ourselves having to revise and make more efficient our methods of data backup. The method used to be fairly simple, with files on an external drive, and the original tapes (HDV, DVCPRO etc) serving as the backup. Now we're doing file based stuff necessitating two copies. Prior to my hiring on, the method of backup was to burn the files to blu-rays. But now we're generating so much footage that this isn't really practical any more, and blu-rays are hardly archivally sound. I'm pushing for LTO5 backup, which everyone is on board for. But what complicates things is for projects often we'll have three or even four people editing the same thing, from a central SAN to which we are all linked via fibre. So what I'm struggling with is to create a good workflow, that ensures everything is getting backed up, so we can be safe to delete from the SAN to free up space; yet we don't want to be wasting LTO space by backing up two and three times. There's also the issue of spanning projects across multiple tapes, or if one backs up several times during the course of a project, soon a project is scattered across multiple tapes with other things. I think we just need to start from the ground up, devise a total workflow start to finish. But I could use your help. Tell me about your workflows for working with and backing up footage. What suggestions would you have? What backup programs would you recommend to aid us in our work? Many Thanks! BR

I cut my teeth on a spectra pro, and while I prefer to use a spotmeter now, I still have it on hand to check my readings. It's chock full of attachments and accessories and is about the most versatile bugger out there. Just be sure to get a good one that's been calibrated...preferably from a reliable dealer. Whatever you do, DON'T CUT CORNERS and get a cheap meter. You'll lose all those savings and much, much more having to reshoot your stuff. There's lots of ways in this biz to cut corners and save money, but when it comes to a meter, spare no expense.

Roger Deakins offered a good commentary on my dvd of "Fargo." Also Jack Cardiff contributed to "the Red Shoes," put out by the Criterion collection. Criterion also did a stellar release of R. Linklater's "Slacker," which included three commentary tracks: one with the director, one with the director and his DP Lee Daniel, and then a rolling commentary featuring many of the members of the massive cast. It is the BEST release I've seen on how to make a high quality, low budget film, and I recommended it to all my film students. I'm sure others will know of some. Sadly it seems to be a rarity...those that bother to go to the expense of doing an audio commentary at all enlist the director or the actors. To the vast, vast majority of buyers, they could care less who was the DP. And then many of the films where there WOULD be an interest in such a commentary, the DP is dead because the film is older. Your best bet is to hit up the Criterion Collection. They always do the best commentaries, with interesting people and I'm sure you can find more titles through them with DPs contributing.

There's been a lot of wise advise here. Gosh it can all be so overwhelming. It's been enough on my to find good stories to tell, and shoot them competently, and now having to learn about producing and promotion. Part of me fears that I'll wind up a jack of all trades, master of none, but then again, I might never be a master of anything if I don't have the talent for it. I've longed to have a great group of collaborators, but I've yet to find anyone...all the good people are employed like I am, and they're not so inclined to help me in their free time. All those who might have the free time have dubious competence levels... It's why I kind of hate my generation. People my age are still rather young and stupid, and concerned with partying, drinking and dating. I've gotta find some passionate people who'll work with me. In any case, I've got a new animated film I'll be starting in 2012. A docudrama. If I can get out what it is my head, it'll be a masterpiece, and finally I'll have something that'll prove my worth and justify my existence. It will be nothing less than that. I won't allow it, or I'll die trying. I guess that's how we have to approach this stuff.

That's just it, I was really striving to make a fun, entertaining doc, that also informs. I believe much as you do that films ought to entertain, and believe me, I effing hate boring, informative docs. That was why it's failure to find an audience got to me. I tried so hard and thought I really had made a nice film told enjoyably, and nothing. And so I wonder, if I failed so miserably, perhaps that means I'm not cut out for it. What if I don't have anything worth saying, y'know?

I'm finally sending my doc, James Polk, to public broadcast for consideration. Sending it to Nashville, where Polk lived most of his life, in the hopes the film will appeal to local interest. But I'm terribly scared. This is basically the last chance, considering the film completely bombed out of festivals. Almost three years of work, and I wish it could matter in some way, but so far, no one cared. I'm afraid they won't like it, will reject it. After that, there's nothing left but to dump the bastard on youtube. God what a scary profession this is. I feel like I've got something to say, and I have all these beautiful images and ideas in my head, and if only I could get just one of them out and on camera, I know I could leave this earth with something people would cherish. But what if I'm kidding myself, and devoting my life to making mediocre films that will never matter at all, that no one will even care to champion after I'm dead?

Great! This is perfect. And i realize if they still had the negs, they'd likely be long gone. It's doubtful they did, because the would've been paid for and all squared up. Really I'm just hoping if they've got any records from the period, to show where it went, to whom it was shipped and when. None of the producers who were around then when the film was shot seem to recall where it is, since it does not appear to be in our archives. Next will be checking through all our storage bins, to see if they got misfiled. Thanks again all! BR

Hi All, I'm on a detective hunt for my production company. We've got some betadubs of a super 16mm transfer made back in April 1997. We're in the process of getting all our film holdings transferred to HD, but those 16mm films have gone missing, and the trail is cold. So I'm trying to pick up the trace, and wanted to go back to the group that originally processed and transferred the footage, to see if by slim chance the films were still left in their holdings. In 1997 they went by the name FilmGroup, and were located out of Suite 528, Armour Circle, Atlanta, GA. I tried their number, and not too surprisingly found it was out of service. Nor did I find any info on them via a cursory google search. Does anyone on this board remember that company? Did they change names perhaps? Did they go out of business or were bought out? Do you have any names of former owners whom I could try to reach? I'd really appreciate any info! Thanks! BR

Cool, I'll look into them! Thanks! BR

Hi All, My employer has around 5000 ft of 35mm neg to be transferred to 1080p HD. My preferred lab is Cinelab, because I've always been pleased with their quality versus their pricing. But that has all been with Super 8 or 16mm stocks, and I'm wondering if there are any places you all have dealt with that might also offer competitive rates along with quality of service? Cinelab's best light rate is .15 per foot, so if you know of anyone who can beat that, I'd love to hear from you, as well as what your experience was like. Many thanks! BR

in70mm.com is reporting the film will be all 65mm, and it seems borne out by imdb, which is reporting the AS will be 2.20. God I hope this gets an Imax release, so we can actually see the bump in clarity!

Lucky there too that I've got a great lab in Cinelab. They've been real champs, even giving me breaks on prices for spec work. BR