Matthew Kane

Dom--that's a great idea. I'll see if they can do that for me. The film scanner will be plan B. I figured I was making things too complicated, thanks for the reality check.

I'm shooting a short film with a friend this weekend, and we'll be shooting regular 16 on an Arri SRII (it's the last hurrah before her school sells off all their 16mm gear). There's no time or money to shoot/develop/transfer real lens tests, but I want to be sure that we can pull focus off the lens marks accurately. I'm renting the much lauded Cooke 9-50 zoom from a local rental house, and right now I'm thinking I will go in with our camera body, shoot a few feet off a test chart at various distances, and do a slop develop with some D-76. Then I'll set it out on a light table and check focus with a jeweler's loupe. Now, what I'm wondering is--will this actually tell me that the lens and body are all up to spec, or will I just be fooling myself? I was happy enough with this method for picking negatives when I was shooting 35mm stills, but I've never used it for anything that required a high degree of accuracy. Maybe there are other test methods out there that don't require going through the lab? We'll be going to at least a 1080p transfer, and since we're already cropping out of R16 and shooting on a zoom, I don't want to take any chances, even though the lens and body are both recently serviced and well cared for.

For me, the big separator between objective quality and aesthetic taste is when the 'look' or medium starts to distract from your work, and make a message or impression you don't want to make. If you're trying to make a heartfelt drama, but the picture is so muddy and grainy that the audience (even subconciously) is distracted... suddenly those superficial technical details they thought were so unimportant are now upstaging the very thing you were trying to concentrate on (ie, performances). On the other hand, if you're trying to make a Brechtian statement about how we consume stories, maybe that's just what you want. So it may be more about your intentions and priorities in a project than any universal minimum for quality. Ultimately you're trying to affect the audience in a certain way, and that's probably the first criteria you'll have for success or failure. Spontaneity and a feel of being 'rough around the edges' can be great for some projects. However, I think it takes significant experience and taste to own that aesthetic. That's a pretty good summary of my personal feelings; I really enjoy pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable, and I try not to be neurotic about making sure everything fits someone else's standard for quality or professionalism (If everyone did that all the time, movies would look pretty much the way they did in 1930). That said, I don't like to get into really out-there looks unless the director/client/creative braintrust has a fairly sophisticated understanding of what they're trying to achieve--shooting a short film like it's a skateboard video doesn't appeal to me if the only reason to do so is because somebody thinks it'd be rad to shoot it like a skateboard video.

I would guess renting anamorphic lenses would be cost-prohibitive if you are just starting out. 35mm adapters are really an awful work around that, thankfully, are mostly obsolete since DSLRs have caught on. Even if you don't mind the grainy look of the ground glass, using one on a 2/3" chip makes back focus much more critical--I've seen many shorts with shots that were out of focus on one edge of the frame, and in focus on the other. They're a terrible pain in the butt. Granted, some 35mm adapters were better than others (I believe Letus Ultimates were sort of the peak). I'm sure you could find a used one for relatively cheap. If it were me, I would just use the smallest aperture and longest focal length possible. The 'cinema look' is more about how you shoot and light a scene. If you must go with a 35mm adapter, learn it inside and out, it will probably be the most troublesome and finicky piece of gear in your kit. And if it looks like the adapter, lenses, and supports will cost more, consider a used 5D mark II and some decent lenses instead.

Gotcha. I know some DP's like to use the eyepiece to judge contrast (not exposure). I prefer squinting (your eye's own iris changes, and each camera body has a different set of prisms/mirrors/ground glass between you and the picture you see in the viewfinder). Just looking with your eyes is good too--experience is the only way to judge when one area is too bright or dark--syncing up what your meter says, what your eyes see, and what the final picture looks like takes some time, I think I shot 3-4 shorts on 16mm, and lots of stills before I got somewhat confident using my eyes. There are glass viewing filters that roughly replicate the contrast of various stocks, but they're expensive, and far from a necessity. In my experience shooting 5219--anything 3-4 stops hotter than your base exposure will be pretty much pure white (you get this reading using a spot meter, or by taking a reflected reading from 6 inches or a foot from the lampshade or window). I think 5-6 stops is where you actually hit the D-max, but that's a theoretical limit, considering your viewers won't be watching on a perfect display. If you want to see what's outside the window, use ND gel (or brighter lighting inside) to get the windows just 1.5 or two stops hotter than your talent (I think it looks weird when the windows are the same exposure as the scene inside the room). Depending on the frame, you may see reflections or ripples in the gel, so you often have to use fresh cuts, or lightly used precuts. I'd start with ND.6--.3 is usually not enough, and .9 is usually too much. Another alternative, if you can't afford a clean roll of ND, is to use plastic dropcloth, diffusion gel, or muslin to make the windows blow out to a uniform white--while blown out windows may not be what you want, I prefer that to having just a few overexposed hunks of buildings or trees "floating" outside the window. Sometimes this look is better for the scene--for example, if whatever is outside the window is a distraction. Putting a diffusing material on the windows also cuts down on haze, flares, and internal reflections if you have to feature them in the frame. Re: practicals--Using a dimmer or ND gel in the shade works pretty well--but I guess the best solution is to replace the bulb with another of lower wattage. I like to keep a range of bulbs handy, from 15w - 300w. Nothing special, just make a trip to Home Depot. This does get tricky if you want to use the practical itself to light your talent--you'll usually end up having to use another light to fake the illumination that would be coming from that practical. If you have a bare lightbulb hanging into the scene, put a clear 15-20w bulb in the practical, and then use your movie lights to bring up the talent to your desired stop. If I want to hold onto detail in a practical, I try to get the lampshade within 2-3 stops of my base exposure--again, it depends on how it looks in the frame--if it's in the deep background where it could be a distraction, I may bring it down to just one stop above the main action. If it is a desk light or worklight (with an opaque shade), sometimes it's better to just tilt the shade away from the camera, where you can't see the reflector--then you could still use it to bounce light back into the scene. Sometimes the brighter highlight adds variety to the frame, and sometimes it's a distraction. Luckily, with film, your latitude is mostly in the highlights. Hope that helps--

Oh man, I love that. It feels like the premise of a Herzog movie. I can *just* see the CGI in the texture of the wings, and the motion of the character--but it feels so right! Even knowing it was a hoax, it sent a shiver up my spine. I hope he gets some work from the publicity!

Like Jake said, your incident meter's reading is based on the assumption that what you're shooting is a middle gray--if you set your iris to that stop, a gray card in that light will read at the same level of gray on film. So, if you use that reading to expose someone in white clothes in a snowstorm--your picture might be a little overexposed, with all the highlight areas mushing together. And if you're shooting someone in a black suit in a coal mine, your incident reading may produce a picture darker than you intended. If you don't know what the zone system is, or if you're unclear about how your meters take a reading, I'd pick up a basic photography book-- http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=photography+book&hl=en&cid=15194042704376673736&ei=CqBsT6XtMqjwsQeG0fzKCQ&ved=0CDQQ8wIwAw#p Look for any edition of that book with John Upton's name on it--they turn up in used book stores often, and it covers what most "introductory" books do, except more and better. The basic science of exposing an image is the same for film and digital, motion and stills. As you get more advanced, Ansel Adams wrote some great guidebooks as well. I've rarely found a use for a reflected meter reading--the only time I might use it is to get a broad reading of a landscape (since I can't get up on that mountain to take an incident reading). I'd much prefer a spot meter in that situation, but you can make do. If you're just starting out with shooting film and using a light meter, rely on your meter at first--when you've got an exposure set, try standing by the camera and just squint at the set (not looking through the eyepiece)--Areas that become black, and highlights that blur into a pure white will probably be pure black or white on film--and you can decide whether that is good or bad. Compare the readings you got with your meter to what you think your eyes are telling you, and compare that to the final picture. Some people like to keep all practicals in the frame from overexposing (clipping, to the point where there is no highlight detail)--that would mean taking a reflective or spot reading of the practical, and using a dimmer or ND gel inside the lamp shade to get it within three stops or so of your actual exposure. Especially when shooting film, I often just let the practicals overexpose (as long as they aren't distracting in the frame)--I think it feels more natural, and can give some interesting contrast--and with film, you've got more latitude in the highlights. Experiment and find what works for you. As you gain more experience, you can rely on your meter for setting the general exposure, and your eyes for tweaking the contrast--it will feel tedious at first, but as you train your eyes, you'll be amazed what they can tell you. I learned basic exposure techniques by shooting (35mm film) stills... pretty old school, but it's less expensive than messing up on 16mm. If your folks or a friend has an old film SLR, just buy a few rolls and shoot some stuff using your meter--it will be different with different film stocks, but you'll at least get a feel for what is possible. Sorry if that info is too basic, I don't mean to be condescending. And don't worry about a hard and fast rule for exposing a night scene--underexposing your image to make a mood is something you'll learn with experience, and it's more about what is in front of the camera (the environment, the wardrobe, the action), and the mood of the film you're making. If you want to make a scene dark, but still visible, try thinking about "separating" objects in the frame, rather than exposing them--a soft rimlight on your talent, with a "normal" exposure, will feel darker than an underexposed light coming from the front. Ok, sorry for the long one. Good luck, shooting film will teach you so much!

I agree that film is a business (even the the most iconoclastic artist wants to pay their rent and fill their fridge)--and giving new artists a chance at bat doesn't replace the commercials, TV shows and features that keep average people employed at a decent wage. But even if the political will was there, it's unlikely that we could compete directly with Canada and the neighboring states for luring big productions. Voters on both sides would rather see more spending (or less cuts) in other areas. In this particular state/market (and from my limited perspective) private and state grants to the arts really do help keep the local industry vital. New artists and experienced pros get to take a risk on innovative projects (which give experience to local crew, act as showpieces for post houses to draw bigger contracts, and increases exposure for the state's locations and infrastructure). The rebate program in my little corner of the world, as it now stands, doesn't really do much for anyone (especially with all the government foolishness related elsewhere). I wouldn't advocate a socialized film industry, or completely repealing the commercial tax rebate, but a relatively small amount of money, supervised by working professionals in the industry, and granted based on merit seems like a reasonable way to *help* encourage the business of making films. Phil, what's the model in the UK? I've seen some pretty nice films with the government stamp in the credits (and some bloated, pretentious stinkers as well). Do you think the problem is bureaucratic supervision, or that the money is spent on art-house type projects, rather than used to subsidize commercial production? Ghandi on a Dune Buggy, -Matt

I'm living in Minnesota at the moment, and we had a similar experience to NM in the 90's. After a burst of Fargos and Grumpy old Men and Mighty Ducks, the subsidies dried up, and the industry took a big hit. Right now, it gets by mostly on commercial work for big companies that like to keep their production in-state (3M, Best Buy, etc). Even though I work in film, I tend to agree that a straight rebate to major production companies is not money well spent--the money spent to subsidize one 10 million dollar film (2.5 million at our current rebate) provides jobs for a few dozen local workers (key crew is flown in from LA or NY), has very little long term benefit, and is a substantial net loss for the state government. It's a nice prestige program if you're the only state in the game, but trying to compete against Iowa and Michigan in the hand-out contest would just be a race to the bottom. I believe our film commission is heading more towards grants for local filmmakers (they don't have much choice--I don't think their allotment for the year can cover the rebate of even a modest indie film). These days, I'm more about encouraging local content than drawing in big movies from out of state. I think the big reason that Canada/Toronto has stayed a strong player as a satellite hub for LA is that the Canadian Government picked a policy and stayed with it--for better or worse, American producers came to rely on it as a cheap place to set up shop, and the industry could lay down roots--and most importantly, allowed local content to blossom, leaving a baseline of work even when currency fluctuation puts a dent in the work coming in from over the border. I'm not against subsidizing private industry (even public roads are a subsidy in a way)--but if you don't maintain the roads, it's just throwing money into the toilet. Dramatically shifting policies every four years is worse for the industry than doing nothing at all--it encourages fly by night producers to swoop in and get their rebate, and does nothing to keep the industry healthy or sustainable, and it's pretty irresponsible of our state legislators to create and destroy programs like this on a whim. Our previous governor's administration tried to pull the rebate out from under the nose of the first major film to shoot here in two years--after all the paperwork cleared. Even though they failed, I think it was an embarrassment that pretty much killed any chance of reviving that part of our film industry, if there was any hope to begin with. On the up side--we're not toast yet, and what MN *does* do reliably is fund the arts... now to convince a bunch of suburban and rural legislators that film is an art, like theater, or conceptual dance, or underwater basketweaving...

--take my comments with a grain of salt--I am going to be shooting 35 for the first time this summer myself, and I'm by no means the most experienced DP. I didn't find the paintjob distracting, but I can see what Freya is pointing out (I'm noticing it at 0:57, the first time he goes to the door--the smudges on the door feel too intentional). It doesn't ruin the film for me at all, but the set does feel almost like a theater set, with big touches that make it believable from the cheap seats. That's not all bad--it is beautifully imagined--but your lighting tends to be more gritty and harsh (in a good way)--so they don't really match up. While the effect of the lights coming through the slats nailed over the window is beautiful, it feels a bit phony--as if he nailed those boards up specifically to make a nice picture (they certainly won't keep out enemies or the weather). Again--not things that ruined the story, but it's all the same ball of wax. The lighting and camera work was quite nice--I'm always happy to see shots where the key is coming from so close to the camera's axis, but still looks atmospheric. With a big capstone project like this, I would have been tempted to over light, or spend too much time polishing every angle--but you keep the lighting spontaneous and motivated. Overall, I missed looking into this poor guy's eyes--it seems like they are usually in shadow, or we're looking at him in profile. This is more of an editing thing, but it also feeds into how you direct and frame a shot--it seems like much of the film takes place at the same rhythm. There are highs and lows, but I only vaguely understood this man's experience--long stretches of boredom and depression, followed by bursts of terror that force him to make a life changing decision. The framing and editing is still pretty intense when he is doing something like pulling out a can of food--I want to save those tight shots and fast edits, so that when he reaches points of crisis or fear, I can really feel how scary and brutal it is. With everything happening at a relatively fast clip, it's hard to absorb the story, and the suspense never gets a chance to build. This seems like a good example of where cinematography and editing meet--even if he is tearing that canned food out like a wild animal, a wider shot of the same action would emphasize his loneliness and desperation, rather than the action itself. Lastly--the subtitles are pretty distracting. I'd recommend a smaller font, placed consistently in the frame (maybe experiment with a gray tone on a serif font)--the sound design and his body language do a fine job of telling us where the enemy soldiers are--I'm not even sure we need to know what they're saying, just that they're out there. It's not a cinematography thing, but it does distract from the story. Especially if this is a showpiece for your cinematography, you should make sure there are no elements distracting from the story and your work. You might even try doing away with some or all of the VO or subtitles--see what it feels like if you force us to gather the story from the picture and the soundscape. Anyways--take the off-topic comments as a sign that a lot of your lighting and camera work is really solid--leaving plenty of room to pick at other things.

I just watched the movie "The Game", dir. by David Fincher. One of the better examples of this that I can recall--there's lots of running, walking through pools of light, etc--but it looks quite modern, not like a 40's detective story. Even the daylight exteriors and higher key interiors have a lot of atmosphere--often thanks to careful framing and yup, production design/wardrobe.

Does your red body have an MX sensor? If you're used to shooting film, I think your instincts will serve you well when you're lighting for dark (but not *too* dark). When I shoot or gaff with a Red, I keep a close eye on the live histogram, and occasionally pull out my light meter--but if it's a real film noir style project, don't be afraid to let something drop off into darkness. I prefer to set my in-camera ISO to the maximum I find acceptable, so I don't fall into that trap of "well, we can always bump it up in the grade". As a rule of thumb--even with the MX sensor, I'd say if an area you're metering is 4-5 stops under (or say, reading around 10 IRE on a waveform) it's pretty close to what your viewer will see as 'black', and any attempt to pull out useful detail would make for ugly noise and milky blacks. That said--depends on the shot and the specific style of the film. Look at the final shot of "The Big Combo"--any added fill would have been awful! If you underexpose a face by 2 1/2 stops, but have a bright catchlight in their eyes, a bright spot in the background or a "normally" exposed kicker--you can have a really striking, atmospheric shot that's "technically" way underexposed. Eyes matter a lot in situations like that--the only time I get antsy with a really dark setup is when I can't see one or both eyes... and even then, it might be the right look at that moment in the story. Don't let the technical specs keep you from making a really atmospheric shot--get dark, get risky!

I live in the upper midwest and still fancy myself a cinematographer (I even get paid for it more often than not, although my rent check is usually covered by gaffing music videos, corporates, indie features, etc). I think cinematography is a practice; the fundamentals are the same wherever you do it--whether or not you move to one of the big hubs (or a satellite like Austin/Shreveport/Santa Fe) is more about your career ambitions (although I've heard Miami does have some opportunities--maybe it's all dried up?). For example, I don't expect to DP a nationally released theatrical film anytime soon, but I feel like I'm doing good work on regional projects, with potential to make work that would not get made in LA; and I'm still young enough to make a change if I need to. I did go to a fancy (art) school... with mixed results. Learning on the job (as grip, electrician, etc) was very valuable in my working life--especially now (and even in a tiny market like mine) there's so many tools and options at your disposal, it's always nice to get a peek at the hows/whys before you get someone to rent a piece of equipment you only vaguely understand. You can shoot your own stuff while you learn on bigger sets. I've worked with DP's who are also photographers, or started there, and you do get to carry alot of that knowledge over, but be open to the differences between the two mediums. Do you have any experience with film (outside of watching)? If you can't afford film school, or an extension course, you might still be able to make friends with some film students and get on their sets. And contacts matter--but remember you can connect sideways too. Somewhere in Miami, there is probably somebody saying "I wonder if this is the right place to be a director...". If you have the right team, you'll go far together. If you feel you're lacking some basic technical background, jobbing at a rental house (or even just asking nicely to practice loading mags) could be a good start. Actually, if you could tell a cardellini from a mafer, alot of film students would probably think you were some kinda wizard. Anyways--I don't think much of the idea of hopping a plane to LA with no friends/jobs/contacts waiting for you; better to build some experience and make some contacts--you might find a friend of a friend in Miami who can hook you up with work in LA/NY... and then you're off and running.