Darrell Ayer

Check out the product FilmConvert. It's designed to cater to almost exactly what you're asking about. http://www.filmconvert.com/

If you needed to go wide to really sell the shot here is a tutorial to go over composting in the hit. http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials/advanced_car_hit/

Gaeme, I personally would do fast and easy with bounces. You can shoot the C.U.'s first and use a gold bounce and perhaps a little underexposure so it has a last light look. Especially with the kid, get his C.U.'s first while he has energy. Go wide when the sun is setting so you get that shot and not kill yourself for pickups... I always think a sunset looks great with silhouette on wides.

As I cannot check the link where I am I guess I should ask. Are you talking about when Bond is in china? Because they set it up in the arial shot before hand that there was bright blue lighting under the highways. So I'm going to say that it's practical. The only place in the states I've seen anything like that is Miami, and they used that to great effect in Miami Vice a few years ago.

If bouncing is really important you could alway look for a large mirror or mylar? since those type of surfaces will throw the light farther.

Have you considered letting that shot go into silhouette and then just use bounces for the close ups?

Here is a short film I shot and lit last summer, which has finally finished going thru prost production. I was wondering if there is anything that you guys think are "reel worthy". Thanks in advance for your feedback!

They'll recycle it until all our spys are drone aircraft. But then again....

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/October2012/KillingThemSoftly/page1.php They had some cool rain scenes in this and might give you a little insight on how to shoot it Good luck.

I'm going to have to say yes, if only because if you "true motion" (god why whould you?) a movie it turns into the same fast forward looking trash. I was stuck at a house watching the origional evil dead on a tv I couldn't turn that off. It takes you out of the story and really makes you only look at the camera work. Distracting is an understatement. I think it has to do with persistance of vision and our mind not being given any time to really interpolate the motion on it's own.

http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails Here's a great (long) article on a bit of how we all are feeling.

Lorenzo, I have to disagree with "It looked WAY too real". There is nothing any more real with how 48fps renders motion. I found that most of the motion was actually less realistic with a lot of jitter between frames, it almost exaserbated it. It looks sharper, which when things are moving isn't really the case in real life. It took about half the movie to put a finger on what it was I didn't like about it and it hit me. Everything looked like it was moving to fast. As though it was being fast forwarded and the audio was ADRed on top of it, it made me physically uncomfortable. The up side is there was no "3D headache" to speak of... The problems with the movie where their own after that. Though what happend to the miniature unit?

Raj, I don't think that calling greg arrogant is really the way to calm down this thread. He was making a clear statement that people would not be really kind to you on another message board. If anyone on this page can accused of arrogance, it is you. I understand the language barrier but it doesn't excuse your actions fully. You should stop talking this way and there wouldn't be such furvor over it. Also, to be clear, nothing Gregg has said has been digitally "fundimentalist", the only person here that said a movie was bad because the format it was shot in was you.

Matt, I am new here, I discovered this site a few months ago as I wasn't learning anything else from people on any of the ---User boards. I have to say, having David Mullen or any of the other ASC shooters answer my personal questions is totally impressive. I'm not sorry I missed the film is dead era on here and I'm sure it was a mess. Transitioning to cinematography from a long standing interest in photo, i am familiar with the conversation. I am sure Deakins made a few people grumble when he switched to the Alexa. But to be fair at least he didn't go on and on like Hurlbut about the 5D or some other consumer camera. His (hurlbut's) opinions on that really turned me off to him as a credible person for some time. That whole think with Christian Bale didn't help either, though my opinion of him has changed with his great lighting articles on his site... To be fair I think that it's a bit cold to go so far as to blast Deakin's as an artist just because he insulted the girl he took to prom. His middle aged and sometimes men devorce their wife's for a 20 something. If you catch my drift. Besides the Alexa is hotter than any of the other girls her age. These are just tools, his work looks good and he is a fabulous collaborator. As far as cinema going in a direction that isn't good, I have to disagree. I don't think digital has killed the quality of photography or it's abundance as an art, so I can't see how it would do the same for cinema. The magic is gone for photo, and so people have a hard time making a living at it but cinematography, and for that matter cinema, is a much harder thing to create. You can take a pretty photo and wow anyone, if you try that with cinema, you fail. The moving parts in this medium deictate that it will be around, and exclusive to the people who care to do it well, for a long time. Again, it will change but I doubt it will fall away into the abyss or drop in quality, as long as it cost millions to make they're not going to give the gun to anyone.

Raj, This entire thread was inflamitory, and I'm not sure why Gregg has to backpeddle his own statements. Raj, this is an educational forum and one decicated to art of cinematography for the purposes of lifing the art. Blasting one of the most recognized people in the field for using digital isn't really what most of us come here for, there are other forums for that. I could understand if you had something to say that was remotely constructive but it wasn't. With your attitude I think Gregg had the right idea to tell you to go to Deakin's own site and tell him what you think, I'm sure it'd make you reconsider your wording. Matt Phillips, I don't understand your motivation in giving Gregg a hard time on this. He is making valid points. Even if he is being a bit glib, the tone of the intital post calls for the reaction. As far as the "freedom of speech" angle, this isn't a movie review sight. The on screen forum is a place to delare what you feel about a movie but this site demands a level of respectiblity and that should be enforced by it's members. I don't want to come on here and have the site reduced to some mess like DVXUser. If this was a good thread we'd all be talking about issues with the pleathroa of crane moves in the opening or how undramatic the subway chase was, not eachother.

This place is a real names Forum (I'm sure you're getting this on all your posts but still, rules are rules) The best,

Can anyone check this out and see what is most useful for my reel? I'm too close to it to really see what is the best.

Every frame from the trailers so far have been beautifully shot and lit. I think there is a standard on this show that is slightly above the rest of the Bonds I've seen. Casino Royale and just the car chase from Quantum of Solace (just the car chase) come close. I am overly excited to see the rest of this movie and Deakins work on it.

Thanks Amy!

This is one of my first completed projects. Please let me know what you think about the cinematography and what I could have done better. Thank you Darrell Ayer

To balance in the timing is balancing with printer lights or with the DI, which is more likely. Lubeski chose these stocks because he likes the grain structure and how it holds details. If you are shooting your project with a 7d I wouldn't go this route, unless you're interested in using colder colors. I would also test to see how much information translates for you in the timing I'm sure, even the technicolor cinestyle, the file will not be able to be pushed as far as film would. The real important things IMO to look at are Lubezki's "rules" for shooting, which would give you the structure to work with in to acheve the look that they had in Tree of Life.

::double post::

Here's a link to the Tree of Life article on American Cinematographer. It's full of the rules and techniques used to shoot the film. There's no special lens or equipment that created their look, it's more about technique. Go out side and play in the late afternoon to get a feel for how you want it to look. http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2011/TheTreeofLife/page1.php

I was reading in American Cinematographer this month that in the new Dallas show they used Soy Sauce as the "oil" for when it was raining down on them. I'd also look up what was used in the opening credits of MTV's Teen Wolf credit sequence or look what was used in Quantum of Solace when the girl was covered, I'm sure a quick Google search should bring that up. Good luck. Darrell

I still can't find a better reason he is moving away from a career of pioneer filmmaking to make a string of half baked sequals. At this point he should know what works and what doesn't. It's almost like no one is asking questions after the first draft lately. I expect more from filmmakers half his caliber.