Brian Rose

This is awfully silly and shallow I suppose, but whatever happened to art and design with these cams. The canon looks like a bloody toy, and the Scarlett just looks effin stupid. I'd love an HD camera in a body that had a little style to it, like how the Leica digitals still maintain that form and look of the classical 35mm. I'd love something that evoked a Bolex, with black and silver...something that paid homage to the grand old analog cameras while (as always) pushing the technological envelope.

So this new spate of digital cameras being announced about has me throwing my hands in the air. Every time I think I've found the one to save up for, they bring something new out, and I just don't know. The prices are getting cheaper, but not by much. Can't spend 10-15K on the Scarlett, certainly not 20K on the Canon, and all when they'll be rendered obsolete. Up to now I've done fine renting, and I may keep on doing that. And for my next doc feature, you know what? I think I'm gonna shoot on film. I've got the gear, and that stuff doesn't go out of date. Just gotta buy the film stock. And dammit, at least my stuff will look different than all the uniformly slick HD being churned out by so many people who don't know what they're doing, who are just throwing their money around buy cams like they're sportscars, always keeping up with the Joneses. I'd like to see them shoot a pic on film. I think I wanna do that. Wanna be different, and go against the trends. Not to mention, I might not have another chance to shoot something important to me in film, before I have no choice but to get on the HD bandwagon for good. BR

The bastards already yanked it from my area theaters in favor of Liemax. Saw Dark Knight before the switch, and the 70mm scenes were glorious. Easily one of my favorite experiences involving a contemporary film in the theater. By the time Inception rolled around, the switch had been made, and when I watched scenes I knew for a fact were 70mm, they appeared on screen as uniformly blah as the 35mm sequences, all filtered through DI and uprezzed for the giant screen. It pains me to think I will never experience Dark Knight Rises, which will feature EVEN MORE Imax scenes that Dark Knight, in true, 15/70. I gotta say it: **(obscenity removed)** you Imax for selling your legacy and your soul.

God they make it sound like 15/70 is cruddy or something. Well a lot of us think your digital LieMax is pretty cruddy too. This new laser technology had better be good, because otherwise I'll save my money and skip Imax altogether...

Oh Paul how I empathize. Two and a half years ago, I got a full time job outta college. It was my dream job, since I studied cinematography and documentary film, and before that history, and now found myself working for a company that made Civil War films! But in October, I was let go, and they even used the sames words about not fitting in. The company was on some hard times at that moment, and I was very much the learner, and I made mistakes. Too many. I found myself jobless, in the midst of the worst economy since the 30s, thrust into a medium sized market oversaturated with overqualified individuals with 20 years experience who'd been laid off when several large companies went under, and now were vying for the jobs that I would have normally been in line to compete for. Instead, I had not a chance. How did I survive? A combination of things. I cut back where ever I could...stayed with my folks until I got on my feet. Made money transfer home videos to DVD. Also made money restoring antiques...this was actually very important. It gave me a semblance of control over my life, and pride that I was making money from something I created with my own two hands. Few things are as satisfying as a day's labor that leaves your hands dirty. I scoured craigslist for gigs. This too was extremely valuable. Most gigs were nothing, and the posters were sleazeballs, but I developed a better business sensibility because of it. And I DID meet a few legit filmmakers, who turned into friends and paying clients. But most of all, I found my NICHE. What you've got to do is figure out what you can REALLY offer, what makes you indispensible over that other guy. Let's face it. We're in a new world where we've got to compete with so many jokers who own a DSLR and a Macbook Pro, who are wiling to undercut the competition. You've got to figure out what you have to offer that they don't, and exploit it. I developed a client base in large part not because of my skills behind a camera or at an editing station, but because I was a cracking good researcher. I drew on my skills as a historian, my knowledge of the archive system, and pretty soon I was doing work for museums, historical societies, and even my former employers! I developed a reputation for being able to find anything, from vintage films of 1920s shipyard workers, to FSA kodachromes, and even sensitive CIA and NSA documents. Earlier this year, I had my biggest gig, a five month foray on a miniseries where I was the researcher. Along the way, I developed my archival skills into a keen knowledge of organizing and storing stock and archival materials, which was one more niche. There are tons of DSLR run-and-gunners, but how many know how to log and transcribe materials, to organize them for editors, produce proxies, back up everything for long term storage? Not many. My value grew. And a few weeks ago, almost exactly two years after I was let go, that same company asked me back, even with a raise! There were pleased with my work, how I had grown and matured, and most of all, I had a very valuable skill, and was not easily replaced. They needed me as much as I needed them, and we're a fantastic fit. So in sum: find your niche, figure out what you can offer that others can't, and market it. Convince others that they CAN'T POSSIBLY go on without your services. And DEVELOP those skills, take every opportunity to try new things. Each time you do, that's one more skill you have that others don't, it's one more reason clients and prospective employers will turn to you. Become so important to them that finally they say, "Jeez, why don't we just hire him? If someone else does, who will we have to do [insert task]? We'll be hosed!" But most, most of all, look out for yourself. Take care and know your happiness must be paramount. Two months after I was let go, I was still depressed, suffering from insomnia and anxiety attacks...finally I decided I needed help, and for six months I was in counseling, twice a month. That made all the difference, having someone to talk to about my many anxieties, who helped guide me through, was vital. Never needed meds (and I don't recommend them), just some new coping strategies. Most important trick I learned is (cliche though it sounds), take each day one at a time. Don't focus on next year, next month, next week. Just ask yourself, "Okay, what shall I do today." If you look at you whole life ahead of you, it'll destroy you (hint: it ends in old age, decay and finally death). One day at a time breaks up the problem, and puts things in perspective. You realize, "Okay, I'm healthy, I've got food to eat today. I've got money in the bank today. I'm doing alright today. I'm going to go look for work, but I will remember that at the end of the day, I'll still be doing alright." Okay, enough for tonight. Good Luck Paul. I'll be thinking of you! BR

Phil, the pro res is merely the native format (such as our converted 5D material). For online/web purposes we'd be generating motion jpeg proxies with BITC for comping. I've been reading all day, and consulting with another techie in the office, and I think I'm leaning toward a three level approach: Level 1: Proxies. This would be available always for use for inhouse comping, as well as for those needing stock footage Level 2: Online originals. Factoring on cost as well as existing infrastructure, we're probably going to go with spanning the stock footage across 2TB hard drives which would be accessed when it comes time to relink clips, or provide the client with full res versions Level 3: LTO backup. But considering hard drives DO fail, and as we add hard drives, the law of large numbers suggests a failure is increasingly likely, all the footage would be backed up to LTO 5, whose tapes roughly equal the hard drives we use (1.5 TB). We've been needing a more effective archiving solution for some time, as our current workflow has been to back up raw footage to blu-ray. Of course, we've filled two massive binders already and we're burning our way through a third. I think the environment is right that I'm going to compile a cost comparison report, to show the savings of using LTO for our archival storage. So thanks all for your help, and if you have anything else to add, I'd be eager to read it! Best, BR

I'm about to embark on a massive, and I mean massive footage archiving project for my (new) employer. They possess a substantial collection of historical reenactment footage, which they license as stock footage, and want it all digitized to take their operations to the next level. The footage spans several decades, and every imaginable format: D2,Beta SP, digibeta, DVCAM, miniDV, HDCAM, HDV, file types of every kind, super 8mm, 16mm, 35mm... Digitizing the footage will be no problem, as we have all the inhouse facilities for tape transfers, and the film will just be a matter of telecine to pro-res. What I'm wrestling with is just how to managed so much footage. Rough estimates are about 1000 hours of material. Given DV is around 12 gigs an hour, and you're looking at a minimum of 12 tbs, and really there will be much more than that, since a substantial chunk of that footage is HD material. Spanning across a bunch of 2tb hard drives seems impractical, and dangerous, as each hard drive I add, the law of large numbers says one will fail, which will SUCK. Not to mention those drives are not exactly idea for long term storage. LTO struck me as another option, though that seems more suited as a backup/storage solution, whereas this material would need to be in a state that is accessible, since the point is to have this material available for license. We also have a SAN and a fibre network, though at this point it is more of an active terminal, in that it is for live projects, and it's divided into smaller hard drives of 2-4 TB which are each dedicated to a particular editor. Total size is 22 or 24 tbs. Is expansion of the SAN an option, perhaps to establish a dedicated stock drive? Or do I look at constructing a RAID in tandem with our server? Man, so many, many options, and in many ways I am a novice, and learning as I go. I'd sure love some input from you all, whom I'm sure have worked with large amounts of footage. How do you manage it in a way both efficient in terms of accessibility, while ensuring redundancy and safety of storage? Best, BR

Awe, Freya, I didn't know that's how you felt! ;) Seriously though, thanks everyone for your comments. Like I said, I'm in no hurry. I've been waiting and researching cameras for nearly four years...I can wait six more months!

I posted this in the HD forum, but to no replies, so I thought it might get better notice here, if you all don't mind. Now I know, this is kind of a dumb question. Of course, there's ALWAYS something new coming in six months or a year. The reason I ask is I've been waiting several years to get an HD camera, and I think I'm close to pulling the trigger on one. I've been reading up on all the available cameras, I've tested as many as I can get my hands on, and based on a number of factors including chip size, versatility, cost, I'm leaning strongly toward getting an AG AF100 from Panasonic, along with a CF recorder like the Pix 240 from Sound Devices. But of course, there is always something new coming, and I'm not in a huge hurry, so if it means waiting six more months for something to come out...I can do that. So is there anything supposed to be coming in the next 6-12 months that you all think would be worth waiting for? Not necessarily something on the scale of an EX1-2R with an extra widget, but gamechangers (2K-3K under $5000, bigger chip, etc), better price point, quality, all those factors. What is the latest scuttlebutt? Thanks! BR

I know, kind of a dumb question. Of course, there's ALWAYS something new coming. The reason I ask is I've been waiting several years to get an HD camera, and I think I'm close to pulling the trigger on one. I've been reading up on all the available cameras, I've tested as many as I can get my hands on, and based on a number of factors including chip size, versatility, cost, I'm leaning strongly toward getting an AG AF100 from Panasonic, along with a CF recorder like the Pix 240 from sound devices. But of course, there is always something new coming, and I'm not in a huge hurry. I do want something HD eventually, but I'm wondering if there's anything supposed to be coming in the next 6-12 months that you all think would be worth waiting for? Gamechangers, better price point, quality, all those factors. What is the latest scuttlebutt? Thanks! BR

I mean this sound obvious, but watch lots of movies. Get DVDs with special features...interviews, making of docs, director commentaries, so you can see what is going on the set, how they're lighting and pulling off shots the way they do. After you've watched the movie, read the scripts. You can often find them online for free. If you can, find drafts and treatments. This will show you how a film evolves through the creative process. Next, technical manuals are great. Depending on what your interests are, they've got everything for cinematography, sound, editing...you name it. "Making Movies" by Sidney Lumet is the best by far on the nuts and bolts of film-making. Start making films. Just have fun, don't worry about art or originality. Experiment. Try everything and see what you like. I originally thought I wanted to direct narrative films, but discovered I hated working with actors. But I loved running camera, and I loved non-fiction, so I got into shooting docs. You won't know til you try. Finally: DON'T study film as an undergrad...at least, don't major in it. If it is that important to you, see about a film minor. Get your degree in something solid, with applications across many sectors...whether it's business, econ...whatever. I studied history as an undergrad, pursuing film on the side, and resolving that I'd study film as a grad, if I was still wanting to pursue it. And that's what I did. And you know what? I owe much of my work and my clientbase to my history degree. I got my first job because of it, because I had a relatively unusual skill for a company that produced history films: I could do research, I had a base of knowledge, so I became an in-house consultant and fact checker...soon I was writing scripts for them, and it was off from there. Because you're going to find that your ability to shoot or edit will do you little good competing against hundreds of other young people, and hundred more with years of experience ahead of you. Much of this industry is about WHO you know, and that takes time, and in the meantime, you've got to fall back on something. Figure out what your niche is, what you can offer that other competitors can't. Figure out how you can make yourself INVALUABLE to a producer, and you'll do fine.

A good point, but what is sad is it all winds up getting reduced through the 4K DI workflow and comes out rather blah on the other end, because the projection technology has yet to catch up with the native resolution of the 65mm format, where you need 8K for it to really resolve. I recall seeing Dark Knight in 15/70 Imax, and it was glorious every time they switched to a 65mm scene. A few years later i went to the same theatre to see Inception, only in the interim the projector had between switched to a **(obscenity removed)** digital LieMax one. Even though I was watching scenes I knew to be shot in 5 perf 65mm, I couldn't tell the difference in quality between it and the 35mm stuff, apart from there being no artifacts of the animorphic process. I could've cried. I've said it before, and I've said it again, if I were a big studio, I'd be shooting 65mm for my major productions, because it is SO RESILIENT. Reduces beautiful to 35mm scope. Would be cheaper to blow up to Imax than the DMR process, and be of better quality. And it has so much resolution packed in it that it would be far more future resistant than any current high def format.

Yes, yes, yes! I've got no delusions that 65mm will see any kind of revival on par with the sixties heydey. Let's face facts, it's a format on lifesupport. But I would love for just. one. more. Something to send out the format in style.

I would also look into Premiere, as they stand to benefit from the FCPX debacle as well. Obviously there is a lot of hemming and hawing from all around over FCP versus Premiere, Mac versus PC, but speaking as one who is seasoned on both, both have strengths and weaknesses. Still, I use Premiere for my personal work, and it's the first editing program I cut my teeth on, back when I was starting in the early 00s a high schooler. If you can, try them all out, and see what works best for you personally, fits well within your budget, and also fits with your overall workflow...like are you anticipating shuttling projects back and forth for colour correction or anything? Might be handy to know that workflow, what your collaborators use, so you can figure out how it will all go smoothly. Good luck! Fcuk FCP X

Those books are great to gain understanding of the technical aspects of cinematography. In addition, I'd recommend books on painting and photography. Ansel Adams' two volume set The Camera and The Negative were essential to my gaining greater understanding of just HOW I capture a scene, and paintings taught me much about light, shadow and color...Jack Cardiff was especially fond of the Dutch Northern Renaissance and the Impressionists.

There are some shortcuts, like if you're shooting outdoors, the sunny 16 rule is one...but they're just that, shortcuts. I'm with the others that, if you're shooting film, you NEED a lightmeter, and if you can't afford one, you can't afford to shoot film. The lightmeter is your insurance policy. It's there to eliminate the guesswork. Do you REALLY want to risk all the money spent on stock, processing, telecine, on top of all the other productions costs? Because that's what you're doing without a light meter. You risk everything coming out underexposed, or overexposed, and even if you get lucky on the exposure, your stuff will still probably look flat at best, and at worse, utter poop, because that meter is there not only to help you decide exposure, but also the intensity of your light levels. How will you know how much to light the key, backlight, fill, kicker, without metering each to figure out the contrast ratios? How will you know when to bounce daylight to fill out the shadows? You can only do so much by eye, because the eye is far more forgiving, has far greater dynamic range than film. So please, get a meter. In fact, get two. I always have two on set: a spotmeter which is my primary, and then a Spectra pro as a backup. And if you can't buy one, surely you can rent or borrow. They're so well made, so solidly built that you could probably find someone who would let you borrow it for a day. But really, get one, get a good one that's either new, or has been serviced (no buying used off ebay!) and don't look back. It's a purchase that pays for itself almost instantly by saving many days of costly reshoots.

Okay, this one is sort of outta left field, but one that has proven increasingly problematic for me. My own experience has been that dating has proven exceptionally difficult when pursuing cinematography, or heck, cinema in general. 1) the hours can be long, especially when you're getting started and have to "put in your time." When you're so exhausted you have barely the energy to eat, where you dream of crashing in bed, making time to pursue and maintain a relationship can be difficult. And second, there is the problem of gender balance. Sadly, it is a fact that there are not as many women in our field. In all my years working, I've encountered all of one female who was pursuing a technical background. So while in just about every field, where one benefits from daily interaction with both sexes, where there is greater opportunity for finding a relationship, in our field, this rule breaks down. Not to mention there is the issue of professional conduct, and a line which many won't cross. For the production company with which I do a lot of freelance work, there is a production manager who I was interested in, but she let on early that she doesn't date those with which we works professionally. It was a disappointment, but ultimately wise, because if a relationship goes sour, it makes future work for the same people awkward, and if it goes bad during an actual production, all the worse. Not to mention, there simply isn't time. Everyone is hustling around, everyone has a job to do, and then when the job is done, we all scatter and never do the twain meet. Our lives are very compartmentalized, and it makes dating damn difficult. Of course this leads to the big problem of just WHEN and HOW one tries to date and build a relationship, if there isn't time when you're on hours, and when you're off..you're too tired. Yet all that activity doesn't fill the void. It can be damn lonely coming home after a hard day, and wishing you had someone with which you could unwind about your troubles, to enjoy the evening with, to share a bed at night. I just don't know how to get there. It shames me to admit it, but I'm 27 and I've never had a girlfriend, and the number of dates I've had can be counted on one hand. For me it is more complex...I'm a bit shy, not the best with words or mannerisms...it's why I drifted toward film, because it felt in a way more natural a form of communication than verbal for me. But admittedly, while my work is a solution, it is also a problem and I fear it risks becoming an obstruction, for the reasons I laid out above. So to get to the point, how have the rest of you dealt with this? How did you find that balance between propelling your career forward, and satisfying the basic needs we all have for companionship and love? How do you maintain a well rounded life, and a healthy relationship despite the incredible demands of our metier? Best, BR

First off, my apologies. I didn't mean to belittle one of the film suggestions. Just that shooting super 8 seemed to me wholly inpractical for many reasons, but most of all the short magloads are very unsuitable for oral history, where much the point is to allow the sitter to talk and free associate. As for film in general, I had considered it, but it addresses only half the problem, and opens up more new ones. Yes if I shot on film, say black and white negative, I'd have an image that, properly stored, would last a very long time. But that solves only half the equation. What about sound? Sound I'm still faced with how to record and store, though the options are becoming limited here as solid state recorders supplant tape and the old nagras. The audio is more important, really. I mean, the visuals could be lost, but if the audio survived, you'd have SOMETHING. If you lost the audio, the visuals would be practically worthless. Then there is the matter of linking the two in post. Either I do it digitally, which produces the same basic problem of, okay, how do I preserve this now, or I finish on film and get an answer prints made...but when we're talking oral histories that could last hours, you're faced with a cost that is going to balloon quickly. So the goal really is not so much finding THE correct way to do this project, but striving for the LEAST INCORRECT way given the available capital, which depending on the grants, I would imagine won't crack into five figures. Thanks for all the input so far, and please keep it coming. Best, BR

I take it you're joking?

Hey All, I'm consulting on an aviation museum's grant bid to fund an oral history project, to capture on video the recollections of pilots and airline employees from the early days of commercial air travel, who are dying fast. I'm trying to find the right balance, like, they don't need a 10,000 micro 4/3s camera package or anything, but better than shooting SD, which would pretty limit the footage's use outside of being an historic record. If its something that could one day be useful in a documentary, it'd be great if it were in HD. The big thing is archivability. This is oral history first and foremost, and the footage is meant to last. And while I've worked with file based cameras for several years, and love them to death, I'm not sure they're right for this project, because of the issues of just how to archive it (blu-ray backups? multiple hard drives...it all adds to the budget for equipment and labor). So I was thinking about going down the middle, and recommending getting a nice, older HDV type camera, like the V1U. This way, their footage would be in high def (albeit 1080i), but it would also "live" on tape as a source, and then could be backed up to hard drive after it's logged. Is this sound, or would you all suggest another route. Is there ANY data on the long term outlook of tape stock in terms of archival stability when properly stored? I'd hate to go through all this, and find we've shot on tape stock whose emulsion will start flaking off in 10 years! :( Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Best, BR

Time Magazine has lately been employing a fascinating style of portrait photography, often for its covers. It's often not terribly flattering to the subject, because it brings out the pores and the imperfections of the face, but I think it could be perfect for a planned interview for a new documentary I am undertaking. I love it for its interrogatory feel, like a light being shined directly in the face. It is intimate, startlingly so, and most of all, it eschews the staid, traditional form of lighting, the 45 degree key light with back and fill, the 3 point set up. I like that the contrast ratio is effectively 1:1. This link will take you to an example of the style, taken of Governor Chris Christie: Chris Christie Time Magazine My first question is: how is this lighting effect achieved And the second is, it is practical for cinematography? My meaning being, it is one thing to have the subject positioned for precise lighting, for all of a few seconds. Would this lighting be practical for a multihour interview? Thanks! BR

Rent, borrow from someone, save up more money, or rethink your project. Buying an HD camera for $800? You might as well try to shoot Super Panavision. Ain't gonna happen with that much.

My answer is much like cameras. They're all tools suited for different purposes, and your choice should be defined by your circumstances. Are you working from home, but need to be able to take projects from your computer to a clients? What do those clients use? Or is this for independent projects, standalones? What kind of system do you currently have, and what would be involved in terms of cost to switch OS's to accommodate getting a newer, different NLE? Is there a specific kind of work you do, which one program might be better suited for than the other? I've dealt with many people who defend their gear and their software as a zealot does of their denomination. It is small wonder, which how much money people spend on cameras and lens adapters and DSLRs and tripod sliders and editing systems and RAIDS and they're all so many toys, fashion statements, keeping up with the Joneses. I for one, am expertly skilled with both Final Cut and Premiere. For my clients, when I work in their production houses, I often use Final Cut. I would say it is the standard, but it is becoming easier to transfer workflows between the two. For a lot of my other work, including the films I make personally, I love Premiere Pro. I've chosen to stick with it because I am pleased with what it does, and because of my current budget, the cost of an upgrade, getting a Mac computer and software is too cost prohibitive, and the benefit isn't worth it to me. I am satisfied with the system I custom built, and constantly upgrade, and like being able to keep up with the trends without having to constantly buy new gear to do it. And if I have to do something on FCP, I've got enough connections, can call in enough favors that I could do the job without having to shell out $$$ for a new system and software. But most important is that I've made this decision based upon a lot of experience. It is an educated choice which I think many do not make, instead assuming the rather ignorant stance of "Macs/Final Cut is the best, or saying one program will kill Avid or Premiere." It's rather a large statement to make, assuming Avid and Premiere will do nothing to adapt to Final Cut, which I highly doubt. These companies are motivated by profit, which is good for us because they will keep revising their product to keep their loyal users happy, and attract new users. I would suggest that you seek out opportunities that will afford you the chance to try out each NLE that interests you. Find out for yourself what its pros and cons are TO YOU and YOUR work. Find out what other stuff you will need to support it. Will your current system do the job, or will you need to beef up your ram, or get a whole new system or OS? Figure out what your budget is, and how you intend to pay it off. Some people can afford to buy all the toys they want, but for most of us, we have to think carefully about these purchases. You wouldn't buy a brand new car just because, would you? For most of us, we get a car because we need one to enable us to fulfill the demands of our work, and therefore it pays for itself by the income it allows us to draw. The same can be said for editing systems and camera gear. Good luck in your search, and take comfort knowing that, in my opinion, there is NO wrong choice you can make. Only an ill-informed one. And thankfully, by using those networking connections to get some hands on experience, as well as the internet for information, getting informed is about the ONLY thing in this biz that is (or should be) 100% free. Best, BR

Interesting. Of course, it could also have been that Technicolor London (with whom Cardiff worked) may have had a different workflow than Tech. HQ in LA.

My impression is that they DID rely upon B/w dailies quite a bit. It seems especially unwieldy to have color dailies, since it meant having the films handled by Technicolor's facilities, to produce printing matrices and dye transfer prints. All this so they can be reviewed to determine if any retakes are necessary. Jack Cardiff talked frequently about seeing black and white dailies, and in one documentary showed some frame clips. As a compromise, they would print in color a frame so he could check the color. But mostly they went off of a black and white print from the green record. This caused a few headaches though. In one instance, filmed in a steel plant, they for a brief moment thought the film hadn't come out, or was badly underexposed. Then he realized that most of the information (glowing hot metal) wouldn't register on the green record, but the red one! Sigh, I'd give anything to be born eighty or ninety years ago so I could've worked for Technicolor...