Jonathan Benny

I guess what I'm trying to say is Tarkovsky impresses the mind by moving the feelings?

Interesting. Or for some (like me), it starts in the head and sustains itself to the point where eventually the mind no longer attempts to deconstruct and we are left with only emotions.

AJB

I generally don't feel the need to discuss his movies with anybody. It's more about being in contact with myself, or appreciating the simple things in life as for example the running water, or the sound of a man leafing through a book of paintings or even the silence.

You're doing it now. You've entered a discussion about Tarkovsky's work.

So I think these guys who just like telling everybody they like Tarkovsky don't actually understand the real meaning of his movies which it's kind of sad.

This is an interesting correlation you are drawing between people's understanding of Tarkovsky's work and their desire to tell others that they appreciate his work.

How, specifically, is someone's desire to tell everyone they like Tarkovsky an indicator that they don't understand the real meaning of his movies? How do you know that they don't understand the work or that they haven't seen the films?

AJB

Well I'm not as famillar with Tarkovsky's work as I probably should be but if he made more than 3 movies, I'm sure there's one there that could be considered a bomb, after all, filmmaking IS a business and not every film from even a great artist is going to be accepted by the public,\

I think that when we're talking about "bomb" it applies more to filmmakers and producers that have built up an expectation and/or are working on a project that has the expectation of major financial success. Where the expectation on the filmmaker is about box-office results and where the film resides in a system where these expected future results are what validates the project. Thats why when and if they don't make money, the very existence of the film comes into question. "it should never have been made", so to speak.

There are filmmakers and films which are not a part of that system and where the success or failure of the project is not a result of what happened at the box office. Those films do not bomb. They just lose money sometimes. But their existence is never questioned. The film had to be made.

To the point, though: I can't wait for the next Indiana Jones film.

AJB

Correlations have been previously implied between musicianship and cinematography,

 

So, what's your other art?

Music composition and stills photography.

Although I must say: I've seen more of a correlation between musicianship and editing than musicianship and cinematography. I think my knowledge and experience in music has influenced me more in the editing room than on location.

AJB

No actually driving is a Hell of a lot more dangerious than being around crocs according to statistics.

I hear grizzly bears like to cuddle.

AJB

My point would be that something like, say, an Aaton XTR could accomodate all three of us quite nicely, ya know ?

Indeed it would. (love that camera hh).

We'll have to wait and see how this all turns out.

AJB

I have to shoot in a small town, very dry and barren, so I want to emphazise this features by making the image look "dirty", grainy and with an ocher/brownish dominant.

A cleaner image can actually emphasize a dry, barren location and feel. I personally would not add too much grain to the negative (particularly since this is a blowup). The location should already, through art dec (or its natural state), create a feel and you would have the option to seperate your characters from that feeling of dryness if you wanted to.

To enhance the location, blowing dust across set can work great (when done with restraint). I like using corals in such a situation. And also consider reducing saturation but maintaining/increasing contrast (a bleach bypass to the print can be an interesting choice - particularly with corals and if you want contrast - cleaner than if you bleach bypass the neg - but still "dirtier" and more contrasty than a normal print). I like contrast for this situation.

(Alternitavely, sometimes a lower-con image can bring out the dryness of a location as well - like a layer of dust on everything. If you like low-con, the old Fuji F400 was wonderful if you can get your hands on it. The new Eterna400, also good, but doesn't have as much of that "dusty" feel to it. You'll get your grain on the blowup.)

7201 if you don't want low-con. You'll get grain on your blowup but not too bad with this stock. If you're not liking the cleaner image idea, then a test with bleach bypass print from a blowup can give you some results that you might like if you want contrast - particularly if you experiment with different degrees of corals etc.

To much grain and you can start to lose a handle of what the location has to offer. Perhaps you don't want to paint the characters with the same brush as the location.

Check out how 7201 (+5 -5) looks on a blowup to 35 - and also have a print bleach bypassed. You might find that you don't need to push at all to get the dirty look you want.

AJB

When the Kenworthy-Nettmann w/ redisigned optics and better integration came out - big relief. This kind of shooting is nothing if not 'stability oriented' - but when the food is wilting, a faster rig means - well more time being productive, less hurry-up-and-wait.

Sam, do you not think that your example is a bit different in terms of context than what I'm talking about (and what I'm responding to in Peploe's post)?

What I'm saying is that on average, for the average indie drama, the RED wouldn't be a right-off based on how convenient it is to use or how heavy it is to use. (rather, it would be a right off for perhaps other reasons). The last drama I shot was a feature shot in 19 days using an Arri BL4. First, the decision was made to shoot 35. Then, a decision was made on the camera. Well, if I had shot on a lighter, more modern camera, would that have saved me time? Not in this context. Not in the context of the average indie-drama. Would it have been easier on me and my assistants in terms of moving the camera around? Sure. Of course, there are faster, better, lighter cameras out there. But they are not necessarily more "indie friendly" and they tend to be more expensive. My point is only that how "indie-friendly" (as in drama) a camera is has more to do with its cost/availability rather than how heavy or convenient it is to use. There are so many other factors in the choice that come before that.

AJB

I don't like anything higher resolve than S16. 35mm is too glossy for me as well,

How glossy 35 or 16 looks is more an issue related to lighting, exposure, development and printing/transferring. no?

AJB

So that person you saw using a blimped IIc was filming with it because of budget constraints and it turned around and bit him in the ass with all the loss of time he used up when he had to change setups. The RED designed as it is will cost you time.

No. Not really. The blimped IIC was the perfect "indie-friendly" choice for the IIC guy because it allowed him to shoot on 35 as opposed to HD (he didn't want to shot on HD). He had a crew together that could handle the IIC and it moved around quite well once a system was in place.

Do you think the RED will take longer to prep/set up than an Arri BL4 package? Because there are many, many indie films which have shot/are shooting on that camera with very limited budgets and tight schedules.

AJB

I was wondering what techniques people use to make practicals look good. I love seeing them in shots, but I haven't had too much success with them.

Most important: You have to be in on the decision making process with the art department on what kinds of practicals/shades are used in the scene so you can have the most control over how they appear in terms of illumination etc.

The two things I usually concern myself with when it comes to lampshade practicals for example is a) how much light is coming through the shade (do I want to hold detail in the shade itself?) and B) how much light is coming from below/above the shade and how is it throwing on to the set.

Where to set the lamps light level can depend on what kind of shade, is it a naked bulb, is it a desklamp? do I need something illuminated naturally by the practical or am I going to supplement it?

If you are working with film, do some tests with a practical in the frame and do spot readings on the shade and on the throw onto the set. See how 1 stop over looks (unnaturally dim to my eye) vs 3 stops over (better). But you'll find that how practicals need to be set changes depending on how you are exposing/developing the neg, what you are doing with the print etc. - particularly if you are illuminating objects/subjects from the practical itself.

With video you can set up a monitor and adjust the brightness of the lamp either by switching bulbs, using nd or using a dimmer and watch how and when the detail in the lampshade starts to go as you get "too" bright. Also, observe as you reduce the light level, that there is a point where the lamp becomes unnaturally dim.

Practicals ultimately should blend very well into the set if they are not going to be an element in the frame that is specifically illuminating something for a story purpose. So when setting your practicals, just keep that in mind. They should be a natural element that enhances set but do not draw the audiences attention away from what is going on in the foreground/background.

AJB

As an Indie filmmaker I couldn't disagree more either. Even if I'm doing non-scripted etc filmmaking, the fact of responding to the moment /environment is paramount; the tool should be facilitators not inhibitors.

 

Re dramatic Indie productions -- what David said.

 

EVEN if one is taking time & great pains to set up shots, reailty always has a way of throwing curves at the last minute. This is true of everything from personal experimental films to elaborate FX driven features.

 

-Sam

Sam,

The question is whether or not RED might be a dealbraker for an indie film because of its size/weight/convenience. I say no because, at least from my experience, shooting on heavy cameras - say the BL4 - and all the things that come with that, has not had a negative impact on the ability of the filmmakers to make the film. - even if something unexpected happens and you want to change a shot suddenly. Is a BL4 35 any less indie-friendly than say an AATON XTR 16? I say not because of the camera size but because of the cheaper format. But the AATON might be better suited for your un-scripted, hand-held project. Thats not an "indie-friendly" issue.

It is more a question of style. If you are doing a film that is say, unscripted, based on improv, hand held, with a very short schedule, then yes, of course, the camera system becomes more relevant. But that is a seperate issue than whether or not a camera is "indie friendly" - particularly on dramas that have a more stable shooting style.

I've found that usually its a question of actual format for budget and the camera for shooting style.

AJB

I don't really agree, sorry -- there are very few indie movies made with generous schedules, most average more than 5 pages a day on the call sheets, so practicality of on-set workflow is a major issue for a DP to consider when choosing a camera system.

In my experience its been a question of film/video format cost vs budget, not camera size/convenience of use vs budget. If a producer has approved 35mm, then usually they understand what kind of issues related to schedule that might entail: - but that is a format issue, not a camera issue. The setup time of a particular camera (in my experience) has never been the deal breaker - unless the film was being done in a style which called for, say, constant hand-held work in one location over a 6-day period (which as you know, does not encompass all indie film situations). It has always been about the actual costs of the format and post-pipeline etc.

My point was that RED (which we really don't know much about yet) cannot be discounted as an indie alternative just because it may have an extended prep time or might have a combersome design. Will RED be any more time consuming than say any 35mm indie option or HD option? We'll have to wait and see. But I don't discount a camera system for an indie production, by definition, just because it might not be good for run-and-gun style work.

AJB

They did everything. Thats indie filmmaking. Their not going to spend half an hour dismantling something. You need to move man.... The Red is a great concept camera but right now its not a pratilcle indie camera the way they designed it.

To me, indie filmmaking is not about whether or not a camera takes an hour to set up or not, its about the spirit and circumstances under which the film is made.

I've seen filmmakers using blimped Arri IIcs to make their films - with a setup time of hours and the inconvenience of heavy weight. No less indie filmmaking than those which use an XL2.

I have no idea what Red is going to be and I've chosen to stay out of the discussion until I see it for myself. But when it comes to talk of indie filmmaking as it relates to whether a camera is practical or not: very few indie filmmakers (including myself) are deterred by whether or not a camera takes a long time to set up. It really isn't about that.

AJB

But what do these directors use as the metronome?

The director is the metronome.

AJB

I just ran across a reference to this emulsion on the web... is it still available from Kodak? An asa 400 daylight reversal film?

"EASTMAN EKTACHROME High-Speed Daylight Film 7251 (16 mm)

I believe 7251 has been discontinued.

AJB

Hey gang, What are the main differances between super8 and 16mm?

For me, Super8 is a choice to achieve a certain look from the characteristics of the format. 16mm is not chosen for its characteristics as much as for its price-point.

Thats isn't to say that 16mm doesn't have its "look". But from my experience I've found that shooting Super8 has more often been an artistic choice whereas shooting 16mm (super16) has been done out of necessity because of budget constraints.

AJB

You're saying if I'm on staff and salary with a newspaper shooting stills, that I would own the photographs I take while on company time?

I believe in some cases the rights go to both the newspaper and the photographer - each with particular usage clauses. But it is not automatic. It has to be specified in the staff contract. With no specific clause relating to rights, the rights go to the photographer.

AJB

Except for still photographers. They own their work, even though someone else paid for it.

It really varies from situation to situation. In some cases the rights go to both parties.

In the case of no contract, or lack of appropriate clauses in contracts, you are right, the photographer automatically owns the rights to the photographs even if they are being paid by someone to take the pictures. I don't believe you need a lawyer to negotiate this. Its something that I think is automatically covered in the copyright act.

AJB

Antonioni's "Blowup".

Definitely a must see. This one is on my "top 5".

Beyond just being a brilliantly directed film, it really is a study in both camerawork and editing. And of course, minimalist dialogue.

AJB

Yesterday we got into an argument regarding credits and my crew in which he was very insulting. Promptly afterward, I asked for either contact info for his editor so that I could bring a hard drive for captures, or the actual tapes so that I could capture them myself, wanting to be entirely done with this whole thing. His response was that he has decided that he will not release any footage to me at all until he has completed a final cut. And even then, only the final cut will be released to me.

Normally, I wouldn't expect anything but the final cut of the film. But it sounds like you agreed to do the job based on his promise to give you all the footage (I personally wouldn't make such a promise as I would not want anyone else having control over how scenes are cut - even for a reel - but in any case...). Based on what you wrote, it also sounds like this problem came up due to an argument.

I would try to resolve the dispute somehow so that you can have a say in how the film is color-corrected (something I am assuming you want to do) and then patiently wait for the final cut and then add excerpts of that to your reel and move on. I wouldn't get too confrontational about this. Sounds like he's in the wrong, but think first about what you want before making threats and making things worse. You want a good, clean, color-corrected copy of the film for your reel? If that is your objective, than make your decisions based on that goal. If you threaten him and pressure him for uncorrected, unedited footage that he has already said he isn't going to give you, then you might find yourself digging a hole to nowhere and just making things worse.

I say get in on the color correct, wait for the final cut, put it on your reel, get the next job. (and in future, get things in writing).

Good luck,

AJB

Most super 8 cameras are set up to shoot 18fps standard, right? So, if I'm shooting 24fps, does that mean I have to compensate my light readings/f-stops in order to get an accurate reading because 24fps lets in less light than 18fps?

Open up 1/3 of a stop at 24fps vs 18fps.

You should check though if the camera makes this compensation on its own either to its internal reading and/or the lens stop when you change speeds.

AJB

True enough but as soon as it comes up right I think ok now let's see where we really need to go :

Nice. Well, in the case of going off an IP on a feature we can spend lots of time on the first roll if a good percentage of the look will be established there and then it is a matter of matching most of the following 5 or 6 rolls. I've just finished timing a feature that is going to a bleach bypass print. We will be matching the look from an non-bbp IP to HD. The colorist will watch the print and then we will "see where we really need to go" on the transfer as we will have all the digital possabilities at our disposal.

AJB

I am in the process of shopping for a light meter. I have looked around on the internet at various websites and I cannot really decide on which one I want/need. I am considering the Sekonic L-558 Cine, if anyone has this meter or has used it, please send me your feedback.

For something that will last, the Spectra IV-A is excellent. I've had one for seven years and it is still spot on when metered against my sekonic analog. Very durable and simple to use. Lasts long on a single battery and has all the features necessary to make ratio calculations, memory etc.

I also have a Sekonic L-558cine which I like but I can't vouch for how long it will last since I've only had it for about a year. The Sekonic is good for me because I like to switch back and forth from spot to incident often which is why I use it now as my primary meter. More expensive and more of a battery consumer. Has a lot of options that might go beyond what is really necessary (for example, I don't really use the filter-factor feature as I tend to calculate that into my ei rating).

But I have never had a problem with the Spectra - it is a solid choice and it comes at a very good price. I would say if you are not really interested in a dual-system meter, then take a very good look at the spectra.

AJB

It may be a valid question you have, but I have never heard anyone complain in the same way about one film stock over another.

I feel that we do hear complaints when it comes to different filmstocks particularly when it comes to stocks being discontinued in favor of another that might not have "that look" and definitely when it comes to different formats (super 16 vs 35 etc.) Many people were up in arms over the prospect of 45 being replaced by 01 for example. Or there have been many passionate arguments against the idea of a techniscope revival because of issues related to image quality.

The problem comes, I feel, when people shoot on HD saying "it looks 'as good' as film". In the same way as one might shoot super 16 saying "it looks 'as good' as 35". Its a problem because in our desire to maintain a certain integrity in the artform, it is important that we are able to acknowledge and differentiate between the qualities of formats - even though many down the pipeline can't tell the difference (or don't care).

Ultimately it doesn't matter if we chose to shoot on dv, hd, s16 or anamorphic. If it works for the story, then great. But we must be honest and acknowledge what each format really looks like in terms of basic technical quality. Acknowledging the basic technical quality of any format allows us to move forward and build on it for whatever project we are using it for.

AJB

Is a film camera (super16) going to be more difficult or less to get a good picture vs. a video camera right out of the box? For the uninitiated that is.

It is easier to get an acceptable image from a video camera (DVX100a) right out of the box than a film camera right out of the cases. (particularly if you don't know what to do with the film camera and its parts after you have taken it out of the cases).

Which is going to give a better consistant picture for the Dummy.

The video camera will have a better consistant picture for the Dummy right out of the box. Most 16mm and 35mm film cameras presuppose in their design that the persons using them are knowledgeable in camera technology - which goes beyond the few steps needed to get a DVX100a going. The rewards, of course, of not having the "out of the box" expectation and being able to properly build up a film camera, understand how the emulsions work etc. is that you get an image on film.

My question is if the camera is, for example the DVX100a, what 2 or 3 things do I need to understand right away to get a better picture? What I'm talking about are the switches and function of the video camera. Thanks.

Well, most video cameras like the DVX100a are designed so that when you pull it out of the box you can turn it on, put a tape in and start shooting. The image should be technically watchable. If you want to get more sophisticated with how the camera is capturing images and how you want to shoot, you really need to look at the instruction manual and experiment to see how the different functions work. Does 24p give you the look you are going for or does 60i? If I raise the black level, does that work better with the kind of lighting I plan on doing and the mood I'm going for? Once you know what your definition of a "better picture" is, then you can find out what 2 or 3 things you need to do to get it that way.

AJB