Robert Edge

The website for the film quotes you to the effect that the entire film was shot handheld. Is that correct?

Since writing the above, I managed to get the George Lucas clip to run on a different computer. Like the Newsweek article, the clip says nothing whatever about Career Connection. Of course, that doesn't matter. The whole point is to associate Newsweek, Billboard, Hugh Downs and George Lucas with the product, however unrelated. One of the interesting things about this company is the letter from the president. He says that the demand for qualified personnel in the film and television industries exceeds the supply. This is patent nonsense, and great news for prospective clients of Career Connection, but of course it raises a basic question. Why would someone pay Career Connections a wack of money to get a foot in the door? Turns out that the answer is simple. You've got a multitude of people who want into this demand-driven business, but most of them don't know nothing except book learnin', and what the industry wants is people who have experience - such as the experience that a kid with a high school education can get by paying Career Connection US$6,000 to act as a broker, and to piece off the employer, in getting him or her a job working as an unpaid cab driver for celebrities. I'm relatively new to this site, and I don't mean to be smart, but it really does bother me that cinematography.com allows companies like this to use this site to bolster their own legitimacy. To be blunt, I really don't think that David Mullen would take cash from Career Connection to take on some kid who is naive or desperate enough to give the company $6,000, and Mullen whatever his percentage would be. Maybe I'm naive, but I would actually like to believe that no legitimate person in the film industry would co-operate in this. An earlier poster suggested that some people are talking about a class action suit against Career Connections. Well, it won't happen. Class action suits are launched against companies with assets. It is pretty much a certainty that this company doesn't have any.

This is an interesting situation. I gather that the owner(s) of cinematography.com are raising revenue by enrolling in an advertising program run by Google and that they have thereby relinquished any control over a good deal of the advertising that appears on the site. One of the advertisers is something called "Career Connection" (referred to in this post as "film connection"). Career Conection apparently runs an "apprenticeship" program for people interested in film, television, radio or music production under which the "apprentice" pays US$6,000. Apparently, the fee is split between Career Connection and the "mentor". The Career Connection site contains material from reputable sources that the company says endorses its program. This includes an article from Newsweek that in fact says nothing about Career Connection. There is also an "article" from Billboard. This "article" is not an article at all, but an advertisement, sometimes known as an advertorial. There is also a letter from Hugh Downs of 20/20 fame. In this letter, Mr. Downs acknowledges receipt of a letter from the owner of Career Connections and says that he does indeed remember going hunting with his grandfather 50 years ago. There is also a link which is supposed to take one to a video clip endorsement from George Lucas, but I, at least, was unable to get the link to work. There are indeed some positive letters from various people who have used Career Connection "apprentices", except that one must realize that these come from people who have been paid to take these people on. One of the letters talks about how good the "apprentice" was at picking up a celebrity at the airport. What is most disturbing is that Career Connection promotional material is heavily geared to selling the idea that higher education is a complete and utter waste of time. Much of their website content constitutes some of the most anti-intellectual drivel that I have seen in a long time. Personally, I would rather pay a subscription fee for cinematography.com, or make a donation, than see the site used this way. At the very least, I'd like to suggest that the owner(s)/moderator(s) distance themselves from advertising over which they apparently have no control. It is very easy for a young, impressionable person to conclude that the undoubted quality of this site says something about the quality of the advertisers. At the same time, it seems to me that the existence of questionable advertising can do nothing but raise questions about all of the ads, including those by companies that are legitimate sponsors.

David, Do you use a GretagMacbeth card and, if so, in what circumstances?

Jonathan, Pinhole cameras are great fun and they are still used by serious photographers to make interesting images. Eric Renner and Nancy Spencer run a great resource at www.pinholeresource.com. If you have access to a good library, there is a book by Christopher James called Alternative Photographic Processes that has an excellent section on pinhole cameras. You might also have a look at David Hockney's very controversial theory in Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Ancient Masters, a theory also espoused by Philip Steadman in Vermeer's Camera. There is also a World Pinhole Day, which will be held this year on April 24th. Last year, photographers from 43 countries participated. You can see the resulting work, and find out how to participate, at www.pinholeday.org

I agree with David Sloan's comment about the Middle East. Israel and Jordan are extraordinary places geographically, historically and culturally. I imagine that the same is true of Lebanon. The reality about Israel is that the violence is real and that it is random. You have to be willing to accept that. As for Jordan, I consider it to be completely safe. It is easy to see both countries in two weeks. Personally, I would not join a tour group, but that is a matter of personal preference. The problem is that it will be hard to see some of the more important sites with a three year old. For example, if you go to Jordan, you really should see the Roman city of Jerash north of Amman, Petra (the city carved from stone, which takes four or five days to see if you want to see all of it) and Wadi Rum (the dessert in the south where the Arab Revolt started, where the rock formation known as the Seven Pillars of Wisdom is located and where the film Lawrence of Arabia was shot). These places involve a lot of walking and, in the case of Petra, somewhat strenuous hiking. They are not child-friendly. I would seriously consider New Zealand. It is completely different from Australia and there is no more beautiful place on earth, especially the South Island. Great people, wonderful vineyards and amazing geography. It's like a cross between Switzerland and the Caribbean. I wish I could comment on South Africa, but I haven't managed to get there yet. It is, however, high on my list of places to see.

The other comment I'd make is that the range of F stops offered by a lens is a function of lens design (trading off cost, weight and bulk) and perhaps also a function of format. The larger the format (that is, the larger the negative) and the less one wants to enlarge the negative, the more the lens can be stopped down before a loss of resolution due to diffraction becomes unnaceptable. I've never seen a lens for a 35mm camera that will stop down to F64. Maybe the loss of resultion would be unnaceptable. On the other hand, I wouldn't be happy if the lenses for my 4x5 camera didn't stop down that far. I don't often shoot at F64, but when I need more depth of field, it's nice to be able to get it.

George, If you have a still camera, a cable release, a prime lens and a B (bulb) function, you can see for yourself what happens as you go throught the sequence of F stops. Attach the cable release to the shutter. When you press in the plunger, it will open the aperture. The aperture will stay open until you release the plunger. Do this for each F-stop and you'll see concretely what is happening to the aperture size. You'll note that in my earlier post I ran the F Stop equence from F1 to F64. In the real world, the only lens I've seen that offers F1 is a very expensive 50mm lens made for Leica cameras. Perhaps others have seen F1 lenses, but they aren't exactly common. At the other end, lenses for 4x5 large format cameras will commonly stop down to F64. Some long lenses for 8x10 cameras will stop down to F128 or F256, and people who take photographs with pinhole cameras often use F Stops that small or smaller.

Just want to add that the surface areas above should be expressed as square mm.

George, You might find it easier to understand how F Stops work if you compute the F stop aperture diameters and surface areas for a specific lens. This post sets out my understanding of how you do this for a 150mm (6 inch) lens and gives the results. Note that at F1 the diameter of the aperture is the same as the focal lenght (150mm or 6 inches) and that at F64 the diameter is 2.34mm (1/10th of an inch). That is a very large difference in the size of the lens opening. Also, note the relationship in the chart between the F stops and the diameters. For example, at F4 the diameter is 1/4 the diameter at F1. Here's how to work the numbers (If anyone finds fault with my formulas, I'd be delighted to hear it). The diameter of the aperture equals the focal length of the lens (150mm) divided by the f stop. The surface area is determined the same way as for any circle. It is pi (3.14) times the radius squared, the radius being 1/2 of the diameter. Thus, at F1, the diameter is 150mm and the surface area is 3.14x75squared = 17,662mm. Here are the results from F1 to F64: F1: The diameter of the aperture is 150mm. The surface area of the aperture is 17, 662mm. F1.4: The diameter is 107mm. The surface area is 8987.4mm. F2: The diameter is 75mm. The surface area is 4415.6mm F2.8: The diameter is 53.57mm. The surface area is 2252.7mm F 4: The diameter is 37.5. The surface area is 1104mm. F 5.6: The diameter is 26.8mm. The surface area is 563.1mm F 8: The diameter is 18.75mm. The surface area is 276mm F 11: The diameter is 13.6mm. The surface area is 145mm F 16: The diameter is 9.375mm. The surface area is 69mm. F 22: The diameter is 6.9mm. The surface area is 36mm. F 32: The diameter is 4.68mm. The surface area is 17mm. F 45: The diameter is 3.3mm. The surface area is 8.7mm F 64: The diameter is 2.34mm. The surface area is 4.3mm

Christian, I think you probably meant to say that Becker and Tykwer co-authored Life Is All You Get. In any event, they do appear to be partners in the production company that made Good Bye Lenin. What I found interesting about this film is that Becker and the cast do a nice job of getting the audience to accept a narrative that pushes the outer limits of plausibility. It's the kind of thing that Pedro Almodovar does particularly well, and it isn't easy to do. It takes charming chutzpah and a fine balance between comedy and drama. In this case, the film is also very well served by Yann Tiersen's score.

I watched the DVD version of this film the other day. There's some interesting supplemental material, especially a discussion about how the film was cut down to two hours. The director, Wolfgang Becker, called in another director, Tom Tykwer, and absented himself for three days while Tykwer and the film's editor cut an hour of material. Then the three talked through the proposed cuts. The DVD contains several of the discarded scenes and discussion between Becker and Tykwer about the rationales for cutting them. Worth listening to, as is the segment on using computer generated images in a realistic film and Becker's commentary on trying to recreate 1989 East Berlin on a tight budget.

A couple more that I've come across recently: The Criterion edition of Fellini's 8 1/2 has an interview with Vittorio Storaro in which he talks about the significance of Gianni di Venanzo. Also, the Criterion version of Pasolini's Mamma Roma contains an interview with Tonino Delli Colli.

Marco, thanks for the reference to dv.com. It looks like Jay Rose's books may be well worth reading. Tim, I'm at the reading stage on this subject, not the questioning stage. You run a great site. It's too bad that the audio side is so inactive.

Could someone recommend a forum that deals with sound recording and editing? The sound forum on this site seems to be fairly innactive.

Bob, Thanks very much. This will help a lot as I work out the design.

I've been thinking about buying a Chimera Video Pro Softbox, but there are two things that bother me. First, the price. Secondly, the fact that I'd like to be able to tailor the size of a softbox to the job. I'd like to bry building one. Suggestions about construction and materials greatly appreciated.

I want to rent some films that take place in a major city (N.Y., London, Mexico City, Paris, Rome, etc.) where the city is, for lack of a better word, a character - films in which there are lots of exterior scenes and the city is not just a pretty backdrop, but plays an important role in the feel of the film or progress of the story. Suggestions?

Spike Lee's She Hate Me. Touching the Void, about a mountaineering accident in South America, was shot in 35mm, 16mm and video.

Ed Burns's commentary for Sidewalks of New York focuses almost entirely on how the film was made. He covers photography, lighting, sound, getting permits, shooting without permits, editing, copyright issues, arranging for locations, etc., etc. If anyone knows of other commentaries that are as informative as this one, I'd love to know about them.

Hmmm I use a 4"x5" film camera, a 35mm film camera and a 35mm digital single lens reflex and I have made prints up to 20"x24" with each. I have not used a medium format camera with a digital back, but my experience is that prints made from a digital 35mm SLR are really pushing it at 11"x14" and are very problematic when further enlarged. On the original question, I use Polaroids to test composition and contrast for 4x5 photographs and I'll probably use Polaroids as part of the testing process for the film project that I'm planning. I think that tests can be done with a DSLR, but personally I wouldn't go this route unless the camera was connected to a properly calibrated computer monitor. Failing that, I'll take a 4x5 Polaroid over a tiny DSLR display anytime. Doug, I have a D70 myself. You suggested in your original question that cameras that can expose Polaroids are expensive. You might look into that. They really aren't.

In case anyone is interested, a bit more on this question: Colorlab, on its website, and Steve Ascher, in The Filmmaker's Handbook, both suggest that when shooting film and completing in video, some of the footage should be printed and screened. For Colorlab's recommendation, see: http://www.colorlab.com/services/dailies.html For Colorlab and Ascher, it would appear that the argument for doing this is that it enables one to evaluate a larger image than one sees on a video monitor.

I'd like to thank Messrs. Mullen and Wells for their comments. One thing that is clear is that I need to get a better understanding of the film to video transfer process than I have at the moment.

I'm planning a project that will be shot on super 16 and completed on video. Much of the film, which will be under 30 minutes in length, will be shot on a single set using tungsten-balanced Kodak Vision 2. As part of the rehearsal process, I want to do some tests, using 200-400 feet of stock, to fine-tune lighting and composition and to decide how to expose the stock. For a given setup, the exposure tests will involve shooting footage at two or three different exposures one stop apart. Here are my questions: Am I correct that the best way to evaluate the exposure tests is to contact print the negative, using one light, rather than transfer the negative to video? If so, is there a particular print stock that I should ask the laboratory to use given that I plan to finish in video? My understanding is that some projectors (e.g. certain Kinoton models) can screen a super 16 print, which would seem to suggest that there is such a thing as super 16 print stock. Are there any New York labs or projection facilities that offer super 16 screening, or am I stuck with printing on standard 16mm print stock and losing part of the image that I want to evaluate? Thanks.

Thanks very much for these responses, and especially to David Mullen who I gather is rather busy at the moment.