Shelly Johnson ASC

Hi Karl, Based on your reflective readings... and the fact you're shooting on film vs digital, I would have placed the shooting stop closer to a T1.8-1.6 Film has a marvelous capability of hanging on to highlight detail and even with a push process, generous exposure will help give depth to the large amount of low-light details in your composition while still giving the highlights a bright but detailed character. Keep track of any lab printer point values and talk to your colorist to see if he felt he had enough detail to work with. Hopefully you'll be fine (and I realize your fastest lens was well over a 2) as pushing and/or under-cranking are your only viable options if you don't have access to a faster lens. The presence of water and other urban movement makes under-cranking a clear slippery slope. I'd be curious to hear how this shot printed!

Regarding Guy's comments, Correct on all counts. Great tips there. I've never thought about the DC thing. I'll try that one! This is why a cinematographer needs a creative gaffer!

Hi Drew, LightSource - James McGuire has done a good job with that AP. Also, PCam has foot-candle tables as I recall. Dave Eubanks has made a very useful AP there. Both APs are well worth having. I use them often.

Hi Kenny, Here's an old-school type of reply. When dealing with the tungsten strobing on Phantom (I believe certain tungsten lights tend to strobe at frame rates of 300FPS and above, with severe strobing at 1,000-2,000FPS). It seems like the smaller the globe, the more noticeable the strobing. For instance, a 1K or 750 Source 4 strobes more than a 10K or 20K at higher frame rates. Certain Kinos will strobe less, but thats a bit of a roll of the dice... and as you mentioned, the output isn't overly useful at high frame rates. The use of a space-light will likely produce severe strobing since that light is comprised of (usually) 6 1K quartz globes. Almost anything below a 2K tungsten lamp is subject to strobing at high frame rates. My solution has always been to use lamps with larger globes, then diffuse, bounce, reflect... whatever... to shape the light as needed. Seems like this old tried-and-true method will get the best results with the fewest headaches. My thoughts on using newer lamps, such as LEDs, Plasma Sources Hive or SoftSun, are that they are lamps that already have inconsistencies with regard to color and phasing. I've had difficulty (as has everybody) with strobing LEDs at 24FPS, let alone highspeed applications. The Phantom already has a limited eye when it comes to contrast and color rendition, so there is already less of a fudge-factor than you'd have with, say, an Alexa (under normal speed conditions). I've always had luck choosing sources that had full and predictable color fidelity (good ol' tungsten). Often, integrating daylight is a great idea, with the sensor's native color temp closer to daylight... and I've used solid state HMIs with The Phantom without strobing, but feel I was lucky. Technically speaking, the HMIs should have strobed, so maybe some testing if you use those. Obviously you're limited with dimming abilities of HMI sources. Large tungsten lights seem to answer what the camera is asking for, in my experience. I'd be curious to hear what you ultimately use! If there is another technique out there, I'd love to know. Best regards, Shelly

I was thrilled when I heard David was coming in to shoot the episodes for Smash. It required him to move temporarily to NYC where we shot the Pilot, so he really committed himself to the project. He was very respectful for how the show was created in the Pilot stage, then like all good cinematographers ran with it and made it his own. That is not an easy show to shoot... what with all it's facets. My hat's off to him for a job well done. Looks like he had fun too! -Shelly

Hey Gregory, I'm not aware of the LabLites coming in wattages higher than 30K. You might mean a 100K SoftSun perhaps? The SoftSuns are great. They are pretty huge... and HOT, but they do have punch and are flicker-free. They are difficult to gel and would normally require a custom made over-sized frame (and spliced gel sheet) in order to keep the gel from melting or losing it's color integrity as a result of the lamp's heat. The beam pattern is somewhat rectangular (as is the lamp's design) and the shadow cast is rather unique since it is created by a globe that is long and thin. Similar to the shadow cast from a single Flo tube, only a bit more faceted since the globe in the SoftSun is clear. You can look up the colorimetry and measure it accurately with a traditional color temp meter.. unlike LED's, so it's possible to get predictable results from that lamp. There are a few sources for output and beam pattern information... one being the Light Source Ap (LS) for I-Phone. James Maguire included information for the SoftSun in that Ap. It's a hot, bright lamp so bring your gloves and your sunglasses! Good luck! Shelly

Hi Bagath, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "platform"... but we shot in the Molokai Channel on Jurrasic Park 3 on a variety of different boats and barges. The piece of equipment that made everything do-able was the Libra Head. It performs pretty well on water, and the Molokai Channel is noted for being some of the roughest water in the Pacific. The Libra kept a stable and consistent horizon while we were either moving or just bobbing around like corks. I highly recommend this item for any kind of water work where you are looking for a stabilized image. Good luck! Shelly

Hi David, The person to talk to at LEDz is Malcolm Mills. I know him from Panavision, Manchester... and he was their front man for those lights and can answer all your questions, organize a demo, and offer ideas on how different DPs are using them. When I saw them a couple of years ago (hopefully Malcolm is still there) the daylight version looked good in terms of color... but the 3200 version had some color spikes that they were hoping to solve. Good luck! Shelly

I second this! Larry is the Grandson of Peter Mole and is one of the most generous industry professionals I know. He has devoted his life to educating future cinematographers and crew members and is approachable in every way. If you are ever in California, you should give him a shout. Good luck, Shelly

Hi Morgan, I completely agree with Johann. Broken lenses from glasses or an even thicker magnifying glass or old broken pieces of surplus lens elements, etc. Some of the effects in the video included refractive components as well as reflective, which might suggest the they were placed at an angle to the front lens element... in other words, not parallel to the lens element group. Some were handheld close to the front of the lens and manipulated during the shot to vary the effect. There was also some prismatic edge refraction which would suggest thicker pieces of glass or even cut pieces of glass as part of the tools that cinematographer used to create that look. There was reflective movement to some of the effects as well, which could suggest there may have been pieces of gel or clear wrap (anything affected by moving air such as wind or fan... or even Dust-off) to create that movement. To get the more opaque effects, you can use translucent glass, or scratch some of your pieces. You can even spray things like Streaks & Tips onto certain glass pieces and control the degree of opacity. Another trick is to spray some of the pieces with water... or a combination of antiperspirant and water (and possibly wave a Maglite near the lens) to make the pieces opaque, clear and/or refractive/reflective at the same time Sounds like some testing could be fun! Depending on your format and your focal length, you will get differing results... so experiment with distances, focal lengths and T-stops until you get the degree of abstraction you are looking for. Good luck! Shelly

Hi Jake, I'm in Eastern Europe doing a film and I have the same situation here, where I would like to create a sodium look. I've used every type of method it seems from matching it completely using gels on tungsten lights, along with keying with actual sodium gas arcs... to contrasting colors like blues and yellows, etc. The local gaffer here had a mix of gels he that he has used to match sodium vapor that I have not heard of before, but that I will test. It's blending Lee 108 with a 1/2 Plus Green. Looks great to the eye, but I'm going to put it on film along with actual sodium sources just to confirm the coloring. Might be worth testing for your application. As far as colors that register well on film, take a look at Lee 013, 131, 241, 242, 088 and 048... along with all the CTS line. Those all work in a palette that seem to resonate with film. A few are clearly aggressive, but that might be OK depending on your specific project. Digital capture has a different response to these colors... especially those containing blue... so you'll want to test a variety. Good luck! Shelly

Hi Phil, It's tough for me to imagine what you're going to make. It sounds like you would like to box-in the light, which is fine. Making it out of poly (bead board) might make it tough to move and adjust however... but you know best what you might need from a practical point of view. Usually one would make a box out of several duvateen frames or flags. My guess is that you will need more than 10K to get your stop. Possibly a 20K. Especially if you are going to double diffuse. By solids, I mean duvateen (bolton). You can usually screw them up onto the wall or put them on large frames to knock down the ambient spill. I should have been clearer on the sentence about high light levels and light fall-off. Indeed yes. That works in your favor in a big way. Chances are, the stills you are referencing were shot under strobes putting out enormous amounts of light. Still photographers do this so they can work at faster shutter speeds and get a sharper image. Also because their medium format or large format lenses need more depth of field since they are working with longer focal lengths associated with those formats. You can certainly follow their lead and raise your levels in order to achieve a similar look. Good luck! Shelly

Hi Phil, I believe that you will need the amount of light that you are thinking. By the time you roll at 120FPS, you will be at a T4.0 or in that area, depending on your shutter angle. Working at higher light levels and stopping-down tends to create more light fall off as well In looking at the reference photos, they have a very rich black and crisp highlight, as what seems to be needed with classic B&W photography. You should consider protecting your light and dark values on your log image... or raw image... whatever applies here, and introduce these high and low extremes later in your workflow after image capture, in order to give your image the type of tonal fidelity seen here. The blacks can later be lowered to a "polite" crush, just to anchor the tones. The highlights can be adjusted right up there, just below clip (108-109). The comment about controlling unwanted spill from within the stage is right on. You will want plenty of solids for the walls and ceiling so that you are in full control of the shadows. Negative fill is extremely important when you are controlling contrast to this degree. As for sharpness, you might want to look at where your lenses perform at their best, and work at that optimal stop. You can research this for your specific lenses, but I've noticed very few lenses that do not perform well at T4.0-5.6 The light source(s) in the photos you have posted appear to be working rather close to the subject. Perhaps a large frame that is placed just beyond the frameline so you can get that wrap working. The light will fall away faster if it works closer to the subject as well (law of inverse square). Your idea of double diffusing the lamp is also good. Keep in mind that with soft frames, the diffusion closest to the subject basically is the source. That frame may want to carry the more dense diffusion material in order to give the light the kind of purity that is shown in the reference pictures. Hope this makes sense! Good luck with your shoot! Shelly

Hi Alan, Well, making the move from AC to Operator is a great opportunity. The previous responses are correct... there is not allot of paid prep for an Operator in the states. This, however, does not mean you should not prep. A great thing to do would be to go in and make sure the camera is comfortable for you. Get a feel for the heads, the ground glass, the viewing system, and make adjustments where appropriate (of course any adjustments to the package should be OK'ed by the DP). Make sure the framing leaders are shot correctly and acquaint the AC's on the job as to how you might want the truck set-up and any working preferences you, the DP & Director may have. You can also go into the office and sit down with the DP for a few minutes and get caught up on the group dynamic of the production, and ask about his relationship with the Director... and the areas where he may be looking for help. If there is an opportunity to be present at make-up tests, etc. (production will often try to shoot these without an operator, but show up anyway) that is a great way to get introduced to the actors, Director, AD and Producers. It also establishes your place behind the camera. These are the types of things you can be looking at. They help the DP... but also you. As anybody knows, the most difficult thing about making a move upwards is staying there consistently after that first job. Donating your time and interest will help solidify all that. Good luck!

Hi Chris, Nets are good to experiment with. You can place them in front of the lens, or over the rear lens element as well. The effect is a little lighter when the nets are placed over the rear of the lens... and they are not affected by ambient light hitting them, but more act as a diffusion. You can try different color stockings from white to brown to black. Generally a lighter weave is good, as nets and stockings do have a way of hitting very hard... especially in 16mm where sharpness is at a premium. You can fasten to the rear of the lens with a net retainer, tack putty or even a few drops of nail polish like in those days. It would do you well to shoot some tests so you can evaluate the results ahead of time, as the effect on film is different than what you see on the groundglass. Also, different weaves of nets and stockings offer a different character to highlights and pin spots, so trying a few different types would be a great idea. Good luck!

Hi David, I forgot to add one thing... You should be careful when you bash movies... even indirectly such as you did with American Pie. Those films are shot by respected individuals in the industry who are the mentors you would be seeking. My advice would be to keep things on a positive note. It's what cinematographers are noted for anyway, as a group. Good luck!

Hi Deejay, When I first started buying my filters, I got some great advice. Mainly to get a complete set of 85-ND combos (that was for film... if you shoot mostly digital then maybe just a complete set of ND's), a POLA and a set of Hard Edge and Soft Edge ND grads. That was what I started with. I eventually started buying unique diffusion filters as they came about... but only in the intensities that I used... 81EF-ND's and POLA-Combos (although... again with digital, you can simplify here) and certain color grads that I use. The set grows through the years until you have more filters than you can count. I tended to buy my correction and ND filters in Panavision 4x5.65 size, the POLA's in 138mm Round and the Grads in 6x6. I can pretty much make that work on any Matte Box and lens (with rented adapter trays if needed). There are times when the 4x5.65 size get a bit small on certain gigantic lenses, so I just rent certain filters when necessary to get the coverage I need. Having an entire set in 6x6 or both 6x6 and 4x5 would get a bit unwieldy. Although, for a while, Tiffen had a 5x6 size that was very versatile. Not sure if that size exists anymore. Acquiring filters is a great way to start a collection and at the same time customize your photographic preferences. Also, the rental mark-up on filters is very good. They pay for themselves rather quickly... then filters begin to pay for more filters... if you follow my meaning!

Hi David, Well... I think you would be taking the long route around that quote in order to bend what I said to mean that. It's true that artists seek out and need their mentors, but then they also need to truly own their ideas, craft and technique in order to establish their own artistic identity. You're getting some pretty good advice here from allot of people. Maybe simplify your thinking a bit and start experimenting on your own. Talking is one thing, but you learn the most by creating your own work. Be great to see what you come up with!

Hi David, This question is a difficult one to offer an answer that cannot be argued against. To me, real innovation comes from a strong point of view and a focussed intent on the part of the cinematographer. In the past, I doubt if any credible painter asked; "What color palette is Picasso using now?" or; "What kind of brush strokes is David Hockney showing these days?" Like any art... collaborative or singular... it's an idea used in context that evokes a response from the viewer. Your inspiration can come from all areas of art (painting, photography, sculpture and more) as well as your sensitivities to how you see the world and look at your own life. It's not so much "what" you do... buy "why" you do it... and how you can connect your unique point of view with an audience. I would never think that almost everything has been done in cinematography. Good God... almost nothing has been done in the grand scheme of things. Every story and combination of people who come together to create a film offers a new way to look at the art form. If I may say, I believe the phrasing of your question is limiting your answers. The question should more be posed to yourself; "How can I bring myself to the place where I am fearless with my ideas? How can I work outside of my safety zone and surprise myself with results that I'm not sure of? How can I create an expression from a truly vulnerable place?" Really, those questions can only be answered by the man in the mirror... and no matter what new trend or old trend you use to get to the finished product, that's the only guy who will give you any answers that are worthwhile. Hope that makes sense. Good luck.

Hi Jay, I think you see all kinds of Directors out there. Some really know allot about cinematography and lenses, some know about editing or writing... and some just know how an audience should feel. To me, enthusiasm for a project starts at the top. If there is one thing to go for, it's bringing out the best attributes in your crew and cast. If you bring something to the plate, everyone else will follow. To me, it's about telling your cinematographer, designer, editor and actors what you DO know. You may have a strong feeling for one image of a scene, or a musical note, a cutting style... or point of story structure you feel is important to accentuate at a given dramatic moment. Your generosity with what you feel will say more to your collaborators than any one aspect of their own jobs. From your insight, they can begin to build towards a common goal. It's a vulnerable place in which to put yourself, but a place where true expression lives... and that's where you need to be. You lead by example and that's what all good Directors do. It will inspire your crew to work outside their safety zones and give the audience a profound experience. I think it's less about technique and more about laying what you've got out on the line. Just my opinion... but the times that I've been able to get to that place are the times that have been the most expressive and fulfilling. Good luck! Shelly

Hi, I've used a 172.8 degree shutter opening while shooting 24 FPS in Europe. It allows you to shoot non-flicker-free HMI's, Flos and other sources that are powered at 50Hz and not get any strobing or flicker at 24FPS. Normally in Europe, you would run 25FPS at a 180 degree shutter to lock-out the flicker issues there. The 172.8 shutter angle gives you that same "shutter-speed," thus the same result when you are working on a production (such as American films that project at 24FPS) that requires a 24FPS running speed. Hope that makes sense!

Hi, Well, RealD is not the best 3D system that I've seen. We color corrected with ExpanD glasses and white screen. RealD uses a silver screen and this has a tremendous hot spot then dramatic... and in my opinion, unacceptable, fall-off towards the edges. Unless you are back centered in the theater and in row 40, you will have a compromised experience with RealD. When I saw a RealD version, I was not all that impressed to tell the truth. RealD looked allot more digitally enhanced... almost like there is sharpening in the workflow in the DCI for RealD. I have no idea if there is any sharpening, but to me, the RealD versions seemed to have the affects that over-sharpening brings to an image. ExpanD did not have this look. As far as I know, RealD is more present in theaters, as the glasses are far less expensive. It should be noted that Captain America was a 3D conversion. We did not shoot in 3D. We did not really concern ourselves much with 3D as we shot it, but then Joe and I seem to shoot using depth in the frame in 2D anyway. It was not Joe's desire to make the film a gimicky 3D experience. He just wanted to tell a story, and that was our focus. The film was shot in 2D and is a 2D movie. Best to see it in 2D if you're at all on the fence on feeling positive about 3D. To be honest, I'm seeing there are allot of people who do not like 3D, yet they continue to see films in 3D when they have the option to see it in 2D as it was shot. Curious why that is. If a viewer is against 3D, then wouldn't it be better to simply enjoy the 2D version? I can understand the frustration with handing out all the extra money for 3D (at the Arclight, I believe it's a 5 dollar up-charge for ExpanD). But if CA looks dark, please know it was timed at 3.5 Foot Lamberts. That's as dark as we could color-correct and still maintain an acceptable amount of color fidelity. If it's dark, then the theater is far far far below any normal brightness level, and the audience has a real argument for a refund. In our tests shooting 3D, Joe and I rather liked approaching it with a light hand. In the test, however, I did all the things you are not supposed to do, but are techniques that Joe uses frequently. I flared light into the lenses, shot long lenses to find ways to deal with the cardboarding, shifted convergence rather aggressively thru moves, moved thru smoke and highly reflective areas. a mired of different things. I kept close track of our technical settings as well as extra time it took for lens changes and set-up. I then presented the pros and cons to Marvel, and they agreed with my recommendation that shooting 3D on that project was not a fit. They did still want a 3D release because that figured into their profit needs and was a factor in getting the film made, so a conversion was the best answer for them. The conversion on CA is actually pretty good... especially if you want to research the steps it takes to do a quality 3D conversion. In this case, we didn't just take someone else's ideas and decide they were not for us. We tested that format on a grand scale and made our own evaluations based on the state of the art at the time (over a year ago, which is ancient history in 3D-land). To me, the brightness is 100% a theater owner's issue. No studio is going to release a murky film. No cinematographer will last long on any project if he is turning in dailies with the kind of defects people are seeing in 3D. It's a theater owner's issue and that's just the fact of it. When the Dome is running at 2 FL or below, what is the studio supposed to do other than re-tool the theater themselves? What is the cinematographer supposed to do when he has invested 10 months of his life in the shooting and color correcting of a film, to only see it displayed with such disregard for the image? When I saw the film at the Dome, I made some noise and insisted on my money back and insisted they get that theater up to some kind of acceptable level. We'll see what happens. In the meantime, there's always 2D. It's the same movie... and you can see it clearly.

Yeah, hilariously enough, the thought of shooting 3D on film is rather frightening to people. I think Technicolor still makes small handfuls of over/under prints for release in obscure areas, but they never have been touted as being anything worth looking at. Certainly, stereographers would prefer digital capture, as they can preview the effect and see if there math is working. I'm quite certain I do not want to be known as a 3D expert, because I in no way am. We shot pretty extensive tests on a recent project, and I learned enough to recommend we avoid it. Maybe that's all the expertise anybody needs for now, I'm not sure. Like always though, we keep our eyes open for a better image.

Hi, I have a couple of tips I can offer. The subject of day exterior lighting is vast, so I can break it down to a couple of points, focusing on your question about overcast. For that situation, I find that taking light away is much more effective than adding light. In overcast, you have too much light everywhere. It's not organized like sunlight. It's just light and it's all over the place. I'll usually go with overheads, but instead of framing up grid cloth or silks, I'll have the grips put in solids. I'll then approach the scene by adding shadows where I want them. If I want the face more lit from one side, instead of top-soft, I'll just put frames up and block the areas of sky that are over-lighting the face. I might have 3 or 4 different frames up (12x20's, 12x12's 4x4 floppies... anything black) blocking several angles of light until I get the look I need. This, of course, also takes away light you might need to balance exposure for the background... so you may need to add some light back (bounce card or small HMI) to extend the angle of light you created by letting only part of the sky light the scene. Overcast days, for the most part, look great when they are allowed to play darker... so even if you take some light away, you can often still expose for the background and get a more gutsy image with your darker foreground. The second thing to consider for overcast, is sky. What type of sky are you dealing with. Is it the type of overcast that has some cloud detail there or is it just a blank sea of nothingness. You can certainly plan your compositions to take advantage of any sky detail there... or avoid it if it's too bright and lacks detail. A huge (and often overlooked) part of lighting is composition and composing favoring the light's expressive strengths. Location cinematography is always a moving target and one needs to be resourceful in dealing with the natural conditions. Negative fill is a great way to get the image shaped. Never feel like you have to settle for bland just because that is what mother nature is offering-up that particular day.

Hi, From a color correction standpoint, there would be a few side-effects to correcting and projecting at 7-11FL. On the positive side, you would have more light and more range in which to play shadows and mid tones, etc. The result would be the perception of more dynamic range... even though that is not what is happening. You would, however, have many more subtleties in the areas between black and clipped highlights and would see more color information in those areas. Because it is 3D and intended for digital release, you can color correct without the film LUT. This is the film emulation that is common with D.I.s that makes the highlights slightly yellowish (the color of clear projection base, thus the brightest tone obtainable on a film print). You could correct with a LUT favoring digital and achieve a cleaner white point... which at 7-11 FL would be quite crisp. On the down side, your blacks would likely raise to normal Digital Projection levels, or maybe even higher. This being the result of more light everywhere... including the blacks... so I would plan on a more milky black. Raised blacks have been a tough pill for cinematographers to swallow when preparing a DCP for release. Especially if one is doing film prints as part of that same release. The film always looks so good, then when we check the DCP, those beautiful blacks disappear and part of us dies. It's just a tough trade off that we find ourselves involved with here. 3D also, to me, looks very digital in general. It does not have an organic structure the way film does. It's a highly processed image in it's creation and exhibition. It just looks more digital to me... which I'm not sure is a good thing. Again though, I think this thread was more about how the brain is tortured by simulated 3D. We've all had those 3D (meaning 3-Day) headaches from poorly mapped 3D. I'm not sure light levels or color correction hava a real influence on that aspect. Hope all this makes sense!