Brian Rose

This is a good point, and one I plan to investigate further. Because the pro side of rental is getting a more comprehensive package, whereas if I bought, I'd undoubtedly have to build up the package a bit. It'll take some number crunching.

Up to now, I've been firmly in the "rent" category. There wasn't really a need to own a new camera as a freelancer, because either there was budget for camera rental, or it was the sort of thing that did fine by using my older, XL2 SD. But now I'm in pre-production on my new, feature documentary project. And I've gotten to thinking again about rent or buy. If it were a small project, I'd surely rent. But given the length, and the scope of the project, this promises to be a pretty involved shoot. And it's becoming clear to me that by the end of the production, I'd have spent more to rent a camera for each day, than I would have if I'd just bought a camera outright. And the camera I'm keen on using is the AG AF-100, which is fairly cost efficient, given what it offers. So I'm not looking to break the bank buying a Red or Alexa. What concerns me about rentals is that this documentary is pretty travel heavy, and I'm concerned about inconsistency of availability of cams and lenses depending on the state and country I'm at. One solution is to rent from a single place, but that would just add extra days to the rental cost, by factoring in travel time. For a day long shoot, I could pay for three days, if I have to spend a day traveling each way. Not to mention, it seems to me that when one is renting gear, that money is gone, but if I were to buy, after it was done, I'd at least have a new camera for other projects as they come, or worst case scenario, I could sell it, and get a decent return on my initial investment. Even a 50 percent return would be better than the zero percent return on camera rental. So what are your opinions? Is there a point when the duration of the project's production makes buying gear a more practical option than rental?

Coke and porn stars'll do that to ya!

Kieslowski's "Three Colors" trilogy arguably gets better with each one, and most would agree the final film, "Red," is the best of the three. Goldfinger was the third James Bond film and arguably the best of them all.

I got to thinking about this, and realized that I can't recall a documentary ever being even nominated for an Oscar or ASC award (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Why do you suppose docs don't get as much if any consideration here? Is there something in the rules, or is it just because so few docs get theatrical premieres, and of those, even fewer stand out for their camerawork. But I can certainly think of a few that warrant consideration in the past. Having seen "Baraka" on both blu-ray and a 70mm print struck from the OCN, I can say that it is one of the three or four most beautiful films I've ever seen...and the best of the decade. I've always been rather stunned this film didn't get a nomination for the cinematography.

Actually it was a television broadcast, but it was on a monitor I also use for video editing, so it's pretty well calibrated...

That's brilliant! That's exactly what it feels like. Now I have the sudden urge to overexpose everything on my next shoot, though that might be a bit dangerous... ;)

I'm watching "The Godfather," and something obvious has struck me for the first time. As I watch the wedding sequence, I'm struck by how brightly exposed the highlights are. They practically blowout. And you know what? It works. Damned if I know why, but it just FEELS right the way Gordon Willis shot this sequence. And I'm amazed at what guts and confidence it took. I'm sure most (including myself) would have perfectly exposed everything, with silks up the wazzoo to cut down on the sunlight's intensity and to reduced the contrast ratios. But Willis doesn't do this, and he's SO RIGHT. I hope someday I'll be good enough, confident enough to know when and how to break the rules the way he does!

You forgot to mention non-interference in the development of pre-warp civilizations ;)

What a great interview! Such a down to earth fellow, so open about his work. Definitely a class act. Now if only we can get him (and Deakins) to join the forum!

The nominees have been discussed in other posts, and we've all laid out who deserves to win, who we hope/want to win. But for the purpose of my Oscar pool, who do you think WILL win, regardless of whether it was the best, most deserving or meritorious. For a long time I had Deakins pegged to win...he's got nine noms, and is definitely overdue. But when the ASC gave its top award to Pfister, I was thrown for a loop. Does this suggest Inception has legs, and will clean up in the technicals? Or will the Adademy at large go for the fellow with the most noms without a win, Deakins? Or will they just throw one more onto "The King's Speech" pile of awards?

Well considering I'm still largely an amateur, and that I seek more advice than I give (or have any right to give since I'm still learning), I'll second Ian's thanks. This website helps keep me going when I'm low and wondering if I made the right choice, or if I should quit and find something with a stabler source of income. This website has really pulled me up and kept me going.

Gotta admit, I'd like to see that footage, especially the kid's reaction when the flames went for the gas can....

I say "Dammit!" Between the BAFTA giving Best Direction to Fincher, and the ASC giving its prize to Pfister, two categories I thought were sown up are now dead heats, and my Oscar picks are in disarray! Speaking on a personal level, I am glad Pfister got the prize. I do think his work was the best this year, and while Deakins is SORELY overdue, I don't think True Grit was him in top form, and if he were to win (or get an Oscar) it would be less for being the best that year, and more as consolation for being denied so many times in the past. You just KNOW he has another masterpiece in him, and I want him to win for that.

Well, if you're shooting specifically for internet, there are certainly some shortcuts in the workflow which I employ. For one, assuming you're going for fairly low-res content, as opposed to 720p on youtube or vimeo, you can rely upon older, cheaper equipment like a DVX and XL2. You don't have to be quite as concerned about the fine details of the production design, since they won't be as apparent, and some aspects of lighting can be streamlined. Like, I don't worry as much about having an eyelight, because it won't show up most likely on a very small screen. I might also light a bit more evenly, with less contrast because of the lack of range on smaller devices, so I don't get blow outs or have everything fall off into shadow. And as you pointed out with the LoA reference, certain types of shots just won't work on the small screen. You can't expect the viewer to spot a tiny figure amid a big landscape or in a crowd perhaps, and so you might have to think more in terms of medium shots and closer. Those are just a few thoughts that come off the top of my head. Hope they help! BR

I thought circle of confusion referred to those who buy HDSLRs and lens adapters to get that "depth of field look"! ;)

Brad, I have, in fact, seen it. As a matter of record, I was in the audience at the fourth public screening EVER, and only the second in the United States. And nowhere do I blame the operators, because they're simply doing their job, and doing what they're told. I blame the director for making bad decisions and I blame the DP for endorsing them. I found the handheld camerawork to be utterly lazy, uninspired, unoriginal, and distracting. The inconsistent grain structure and mediocre lighting made the film difficult to watch. That I came away still with a great deal of admiration for the film is a testament to Natalie Portman's performance (though she is no Moira Shearer). "Black Swan" speaking cinematographically, is one more example of how the artistry, in my opinion, is being lost in our craft. My god, we've gone from a day when cameramen had slow-ass film and bulky blimped Mitchell BNCs to work with, and did marvelous shots of visual dexterity. They didn't even have reflex viewfinders! Look at what Jack Cardiff did in "A Matter of Life and Death" using a 200 hundred bloody pound camera and with it creating a POV shot of a patient being wheeled on a gurney! Today we have cameras that can be held in the palm of the hand. We can review our shots and do retakes based on them. Speeds of films and sensors are orders of magnitude faster and clearer than older film stocks, and how has the profession honored those old DPs and what they did? We shoot in bloody murkiness. We hand hold and shimmy and shake. And then we take all that footage and chop it up into incoherence. Of the five nominees, "Black Swan"'s cinematography was easily the weakest. Thank goodness Deakins and Pfister are nominated.

I'd heard this too, but it's a shame all the same that a 70mm print won't be struck. One wonders if this film wouldn't benefit from the kind of tour that Kevin Smith is doing with "Red State," traveling with the film and charging concert ticket type prices. I'd pay 40 or 50 bucks to see a 70mm film with a Q & A afterwards.

This video is amazing. Wish I had the balls to be as forthright as this fellow, when it comes to all the schlubs who come my way asking me to work and loan my gear for free. Pay the Writer

Hands down, the most inspirational single text for me is "Magic Hour" by the late, great Jack Cardiff. This book is the greatest summation of what it is to be a cinematographer. On the one hand, it is full of stories that reveal how exciting and rich a field it is. World travel, rubbing elbows with the rich, famous and royal. There's romance. Cardiff recounts working on a film with a young actress who developed a crush on him. He was married and twenty years her senior, so it went unrequited. The actress's name? Sophia Loren. There is also a lot of unvarnished truth about the kind of hells you will go through as a DP: long, agonizing shoots in godawful conditions with bad food, illness, tyrannical directors and productions built on suspect financing that can go bust in a second. It's full of triumphs and failures. The man won an Oscar for his work, yet early in his career he recalls being given a chance to run camera on a complex tracking shot only to botch the shot when he tripped on the tripod. A great lesson for those of us who fear failure...you can always bounce back. He reveals tricks of the trade, which I used quite a bit on several of my productions. Like, how do you shoot on an overcast day, when the rest of the film has been in clear blue skies, and make the scene match? He explains how. And he details his influences, primarily painting, especially those by the Impressionists and Northern Renaissance painters. He professed little technical knowledge of cinematography, yet his knowledge of painting was what got him a coveted apprenticeship with Technicolor, over others with more experience than he. It's a fantastic book, by a man who lived the dream and kept working, shooting films until his early nineties! There are of course many other great books out there, which others on this board will surely mention when they chime in. But for my money, if you could only buy ONE book, it'd be Cardiff's.

I dream about finding a bag of money like in "A Simple Plan" and "No Country For Old Men." Granted, those films don't turn out so good for the guys with the money, but I'm SURE I could do a better job of it. ;) And if we're talking oodles and gobs of money, I'd also pay all the studios to strikes a new projection print of all of their existing 70mm films, and get a few theatres in my area and around the country retrofitted with Norelco DP70s, and get the prints circulating again. Sigh. Money is wasted on those who have it plenty of it.

Title says it all. I've had an XL2 for several years now and I'm DYING to get a high def camera and just shoot, shoot, shoot! Really wishing for a Panasonic AG-AF1000, and then some adapter rings so I could use all my new and old lenses. Then, start shooting my next documentary. Sure, I could rent, but figuring the length of the shoot, the numbers say it's better to buy outright. Here's hoping 2011 is better than 2010. Or I can find some funding. Until then I'll keep dreaming of all those nifty cameras and lights I'd love to have, and of the day when I can worry about money only sometimes instead of all the time! What about you guys?

In my case, I do a lot of things. For one, I restore and sell antiques, which is a great way to come up with rent, gas & food money, not to mention it's a source of stress relief to work with your hands, to create something new again from what would be a piece of junk, and you are your own boss. You've got control. Also, I've lately been doing a lot of home video to DVD transfers. I'm set up to handle every format going back to beta, and I go all out on the DVD menus and labels, which is something a lot of other places skimps on. So my clients are blown away, and I get enough business from word of mouth and referrals that I don't need to advertise (and really, I DON'T want to advertise, because I sure as hell don't want video transfers to be my career...) And when I'm really itching to shoot, there's always people, decent people, who need our services, but can't pay. Recently, an art dealer tapped me to do a screentest of sorts, to see how one of his artists would do on camera. It was a freebie, but I got the chance to dig out some lights and do some practice for my next documentary. And they were immensely pleased with the results, which will hopefully lead to some paying work. It's all about figuring out your own ways, and for me, I've gained a greater sense of independence knowing I can make it without having to punch a clock, working 9 to 5 like most wage slaves.

I only rent or lend to fellow professionals who are experienced with handling gear, and who own expensive gear themselves, so they know what they are dealing with. Typically it's a quid pro quo...I loan out my glidecam for a weekend, and the other fellow lends me his EX1 for a day.

I'm not so sure I see the dilemma here. I can understand the cost for datacine...it's time consuming, you can only do one film at a time. I believe the technology is improving, allowing faster datascans, so perhaps this will help the price decrease. Color correction is as much art as science, and you're paying for skilled labor. Considering what I have to go through to get a fair wage for my work (so many people think it's all in the camera, and so I should be able to just do it for free!), I won't begrudge the colorist their rates for the time and labor. And given how the whole process of production, post and exhibition works, why the concern over scanning and color correction anyways? I mean, if it were me, and I were shooting on film, I'd get your basic HD telecine (which have come WAAAAY down in price, check Cinelab's rates), do a bit of CC myself, and get the film out to festivals or to potential distributors. Try to get someone to pick it up, and let THEM foot the bill for the high priced color correction. Because even if you do pay for all this yourself on the first go around, if your film were to get picked up, no doubt the distributor would send it back through the post-pipeline to tweak the visuals and audio, and a lot of other small things. I believe Blair Witch was cheap to make, but cost quite a bit on the back end to get it up to snuff for wide distribution. So really, I'd say the kind of work you're complaining about shouldn't be on the radar just yet. If it's a good film, it won't matter if the color correction isn't the best, or if you've just got a regular telecine as opposed to a 2K or 4K scan with color correction. And on the flipside, if you think your film's success DEPENDS on a full blown scan and high priced CC treatment, then I'd say you don't have a film.