Louis

I just finished working on my second feature as a loader, and I'm beginning to get a little tired of all the paperwork. I kind of enjoy it, but it takes up so much time. I recently heard that there is software available for palm pilots that can enable you to do inventory in a quicker and more efficient way. Does anyone know anything about this and know where I can get it? It would help me out a lot.

I just got done working on a short film, and my fellow AC and I were wondering: is there a set list of colors that you need to use when taping up different film stocks (while working as a loader)? I could have sworn that I've seen such a list, but my copy of the Professional Cameraman's Handbook doesn't have it. I know that 500T film is generally labelled with red, and 250D with blue, but what about shoots with multiple stocks? This is a minor detail, but I'm sure we discussed this for a good half hour. Can anyone clear this up?

Hello all, I'm just starting out in the field of AC'ing, working super duper low budget shows and building experience, and I feel it's time to buy the beginnings of a kit. What are the absolute essentials to get, and what can I live without until I start getting better work?

I think you may have missed the point (as I saw it anyway). If you think about the quote the beginning of the movie ("A civilization cannot be conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within") and relate it to the climax of the movie (trying not to spoil anything), it seems to me that Gibson is arguing against the recklessness and arrogance that he sees in today's American government and parraleling it to the Mayan culture shortly before its collapse. I'm not the type of person to look to deeply into these sorts of things, but that seemed like the logical meaning of the film, if one were so inclined to look for it. I think it was really gutsy of him to follow up a movie that people saw as appealing to religious conservatives (in its expression of religious belief) with a movie that can be seen as critical of the American civilization under its current religious conservative government. I see it as sort of the modern-day equivalent (if there can be such a thing) of D.W. Griffith making Intolerance as an answer to Birth of a Nation. Anyway, don't want to start a political argument or anything, just found Apocalypto to be tremendously fascinating.

I also really liked the movie, but I actually wasn't a big fan of the look. It was a little too grainy for my taste, based on the type of movie it is. I'm willing to admit that I saw it at a local theater (the Winnetka 21 in Northridge, CA, for those who live around here) that has some serious problems with some of its projectors and I have seen some poorly projected films there before, but I saw it on a smaller screen and the graininess was just a little excessive at times. After reading the AC article I know that this is what Libatique intended because he pushed it one stop and digitally blew it up by ten percent, but I thought it would've been better had it gone for a slightly cleaner look. Besides the graininess, I agree with what everyone else has said about the overall quality of the movie. It's really great work from one of the best young directors working today.

I'm prepping my first 35mm shoot, and the rental house has asked me what kind of ground glass I need. I told them 1.85 ground glass, and they asked me "super 1.85 or regular 1.85". What's the difference between the two? I plan on finishing on DigiBeta, but we might also need a film print eventually. Which one is just the standard aspect ratio?

I'm gonna be shooting a 35mm short in a few months, and I realized that I have a big hole in my knowledge: at what stage of post-production does color-correction take place? I always thought that it was one of the last things that is done, but after the negative is conformed and all of the grey cards and color charts are edited out, why is it done last? From what I understand, after editing the film offline, the key-code numbers are taken to a negative cutter, who cuts the original negative to match, and then this new negative is printed. Isn't that right? So when does color correction take place if the negative is free of grey cards and such? Thanks.

If I may add yet another question: I'm trying to get an idea of the post workflow that I want to use, and I'm trying to figure the procces of getting certain things done. For example, if I'm shooting 35mm for cropping to 1.85, I know I need the right grounglass for it, but at what stage of the post process does the actual matting occur? And what about optical effects like dissolves and titles? I don't think I'm gonna need to strike an IP or IN, since I'll only need one print at the most and zero prints at the least, but are they still necessary for other things? Thanks for all your answers guys!

Another question: Does anyone have copies of packages they have requested for their productions? I'm trying to make a list of all the camera, electric, and grip equipment I'm going to need and I keep feeling like I'm missing things. The list I'm making first is just a general list of the equipment I might need, and then I'll try to dwindle it down to the bare essentials. Any examples would be very helpful.

Thanks for all the suggestions. I think as my first choice, I'll be applying to Panavision's New Filmmaker program since I have ample time before we need to start shooting, and if that falls through, it looks like it'll be the BL3 or 4 for me. One more question: Do you guys have any suggestions for labs that work with students? The one everyone seems to use at my school (CSUN) is FotoKem, but they seem generally unwilling to help. Any other suggestions for labs in the LA area? I'll probably need digital dailies, followed by conforming the negative and making an answer print; no DI.

I am a student in the first stages of prepping my first shoot on 35mm. Here's my question: I'm looking at prices at several rental houses, and I keep seeing Mitchell 35mm cameras at a considerably lower day rate than the Arri cameras or even the Aatons. Has anyone shot with a Mitchell for anything, and are they worth getting as a way to cut costs on a lower budget shoot?

Do you guys ever read a post, and you have a great answer because of something that happened to you just recently, and you can't wait to give someone a good answer, but then you read the entire thread and find that someone else has already mentioned it? Well, regardless, I watched I Am Cuba just yesterday and it was just so beautiful. Every single frame is just stunning. Urusevsky's sense of movement and composition are uncanny, so I'm going to have to concur with the person who suggested I Am Cuba. Does anyone know what type of film it was shot with? Possible Agfa or Ilford?

My friend asked me a question today and I couldn't answer it, so I figured I would just open it up to the people on this forum: When exactly did motors on cameras become standard? I know that Edison's Kinetograph had a motor, but it was bulky and could only be used in the studio. When did most cameras come with motors? Were late silent classics like Metropolis or Sunrise filmed with hand cranks, or where motorized cameras standard by then? Thanks for any info.

It's interesting that relatively recent ASC inductees Elswit, Prieto, and Pfister are all nominated, while people like Roger Deakins, John Toll, and Janusz Kaminski who also had movies come out this year were not. I like the fact that the ASC continues to nominate not just the same old people every year and gives opportunities to slightly younger DPs to get some attention (like Pawel Edelman and Bruno Delbonnel in recent years). That being said, however, I really felt that Kaminski's work in Munich deserved a nomination, but I'm not sure who I would replace on the nominees list as is. Maybe 5 nominees just isn't enough.

As nice as her close-ups were, I liked the close-ups shot by Darius Khondji in The Interpreter even more. Nicole Kidman has never looked more classy.

Not sure if its too early for this or not, but being that it's December 31st, which movies does everyone think had the best cinematography this year? My picks for the five best are: Jarhead (Roger Deakins)- I just loved the handheld feel, that bleach bypass look, and the oil fields sequence's look. Good Night and Good Luck (Robert Elswit)- The black and white really made the drama feel heavier and gave it a really authentic feel. Also loved the zooms. Munich (Janucz Kaminski)- Another movie with a lot of zooms, and also another movie with a lot of handheld work, and it looked amazing. I loved the stylistic homage to those 1970s thrillers like the French Connection. Hustle & Flow (Amelia Vincent)- Really added to the movies raw feel. I loved Vincent's technique of using sodium- and mercury-vapor lights (as well as colored flourescents) as her rim light to give us a sense of reality. Cinderella Man (Salvatore Totino)- Despite a few shots that looked like mistakes, overall it had a really dreamy look that I just loved.

I think my biggest problem with the movie was the length. There was about an hour's worth of good stuff in there, but in a three hour movie that's just not enough. This story was told several times before, and in 1933 it was only an hour and a half long, and it didn't really feel like it was missing anything, so why add several hours of new material? Also, the CG was simply embarassing at times.

I am reading American Cinematographer, and in the article for Jarhead, it mentions that for the oil fields sequence, Deakins' crew built him a "large black cyc that had a slightly greyer horizon line". Does anyone know what that is, because I'm having trouble picturing it. Thanks.

In your experience, is the negative cutting stage ever bypassed completely in lieu of a digital intermediate? Or is a negative cutter always involved, no matter how the method varies?

At what point during the post-production process does the digital intermediate take place? Is the negative scanned at the dailies stage, or is it done only after the negative has been conformed? The reason I ask is because a teacher of mine recently said that a negative cutter was not needed on films that go through a DI, but I was always under the impression that the negative isn't scanned until after it is done being edited and conformed. Thanks for any clarification.

In my limited experience shooting 7218, I found it to be fairly fine-grained for a faster stock. How much of an issue do you think the grain will be after partial overexposure? Do you think that shooting another test would be necessary? I haven't gotten my test of the 7201 back from the lab yet, but I'll let you guys know how it compares to 7245.

Hi, I'm prepping a project to shoot next weekend, and it consists of entirely day exteriors, and yesterday I shot test rolls for both 7201 and 7245, to compare and contrast them. Only after we shot the test did I find out from my producer that we can get a spectacular deal for a bunch of 7218, basically enough for our whole shoot, for free, along with a series of 85 ND filters (85 ND3 through 85 ND9), and it looks like we'd be crazy not to go with it. My question is: what would be the main difference in look between the slower speed stocks and the 7218 with ND filters? I would probably overexpose to reduce the grain, but would that be enough? Can I assume that the 7218 will behave more like the 7201 than like the 7245? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

I usually don't like to do this, but does anyone else have any advice about this question? Mr. White's advice is extremely helpful, but I just wanted to see several different approaches to try. Thanks.

Some directors, like Roman Polanski and Wes Anderson (who got the idea from Roman Polanski) like to use just one lens to shoot the entire movie. They feel that it helps the continuity.

I might have some wrong information then. What do people usually use 18% grey cards for?