Luke Lenoir

I think it depends how hard and/or directional you want the light to be. Some dp's will bounce an 18k into a 20x20 ultra overhead and then maybe have condors with arrimax's or lrx's raking light in from the bg, while others will hang space lights directly overhead from cranes. You could probably rig a 12x or 20x ultrabounce frame to the beams with aircraft cable or chain, or even via ropes and sheaves, so that you can control the height and angle, then shoot your light up into it and let it bounce down into set. Just make sure to flag the bottom of the light to kill the ground spill. Or you could throw a unit on a mombo stand, gel it with full blue and then diffuse it with a frame. Send it up and no rigging involved. Just because you are using fog it could potentially look very 'sourcey', but that doesn't always necessarily look bad. I would just be very wary of hanging lights and running cables in that roof.

It's weird, but it totally does! The influences are obvious, but nothing really comes off as a blatant rip-off. The story is unique in a way, like you've seen it all before but not quite like this. I worked on this show while it was filming. It was a lot of all-nighters in the cold. I had no idea it was going to turn out how it did. After I heard about it, I couldn't wait until it aired. It seemed like the perfect amalgamation of 80s tv/movies I grew up on. It's definitely more Stephen King inspired, but the nods to Spielberg and Carpenter and many others are definitely there. I'm six episodes in so far, and I'm enjoying it. The character's are fleshed out rather well, but it's the individual subplots that really give it its emotional bottom. My main criticisms of the show though, are the pacing and the visuals. I think the plot around the monster/conspiracy could be a little thicker, i.e. a slower reveal. And as far as the visuals go, it's really missing the classic 80's widescreen pastel hued production design look: Some of the set-pieces are just too dark, and the orange color-cast just screams digital. I sort of wish they'd put it on film. Overall I think its a great show and a welcome change. I know a lot of people have wanted something like it for a long time.

And the new craze in diy filmmaking is the $600 daguerreotype achromat, which renders an effect similar to a net

David Hamilton used them a lot in his films/photography John Seitz as well And Robert Burks and Bernard Knowles used nets too for their work with Hitchcock, but on the older films its hard to tell what's a net and whats petroleum product

Definitely a job for set deco. As for the direct lighting, just pull the table so it's directly under the joist and then c clamp a vnsp par or leko to it. Make sure to use pads. You could easily do more than one along that beam, and then focus them accordingly. You could also use them for bounces. If you have the means, you could also do a wood or pipe spreader, but that is of course more involved. China balls could provide adequate fill, and act as practicals as well, if they fit the scene. Seems like a good op for a fogger or hazer too. But yeah I would rely mostly on the practicals. Sounds fun. Dont hang lights from cardellinis. That's a fireable offense.

I don't disagree with you. I can think of a couple of examples were I loved the way it looked. The way Robert Richardson used them on Bringing Out The Dead gave that movie a very distinct atmosphere that complimented the story as well as the character's perspectives. They do however have a lot of potential to cheapen the image, and (to me) Minority Report, AI, and Catch Me If You Can are examples of that. I just wasn't a fan. It was too heavy-handed and it seemed unmotivated - especially with Catch Me - that one would have been a perfect opportunity to emulate a variety of different looks, with the story going from the 50's into the 70's...kind of like how Scorsese/Ballhaus did with Goodfellas. I did like how he used them on War Of The Worlds and Munich though - especially on the back lit wider shots like in the image I posted. But I personally think they look best when used in black and white. Here is a still from a noir themed short I was working on. I was using a cheap black hose from cvs over the front of the lens. They are great if you're going for a vintage noir look.

We had a set of primes on a show I worked on last year with Julio Macat. I cant remember what they were, but they all had fogal blacks adhered to the rear element. We would occasionally compliment them with 1/8 to 1/2 classic softs on some of the closer shots. The amount of diffusion stayed consistent between sizes, but on the longer lenses the chromatic diffraction was more apparent, and ultimately less appealing. Just my opinion, but I don't think nets look that great on close ups, and it doesnt seem like Kaminski really uses them except on medium and wider shots. They are very fickle in my opinion, because there so many variables, i.e. the density and color. An ultra-sheer black will render a totally different effect than a white or charcoal tulle material, but it is of course always fun to experiment.

As far as I know, Jeunet likes using a tiffen sepia 2 to get his signature antiquated look, but then he also adds colors digitally. And according to the documentation Ive seen about Delicatessen, the footage went through the ENR process, and then some portions were flashed with color. I've always wondered how they got that perfect high-contrast orange / teal / green color cast in some of the scenes. It looks to be more than lighting. Hands down one of the best looking movies of all time.

Oh, to be young.

This looks amazing. Very much like the italian giallo films I used to watch obsessively in high school.

It's shot on film and it looks glorious.

Hmm. You could use a long ubangy rigged parallel with the slider, with plenty of bags to counterweight, and do your push that way. Or rent a jib. Or just save yourself all the hassle and use a longer lens.

Hi. I would use a 1/8 classic white promist for this. I'm not sure if a black promist would achieve the same halation effect as the classic white promists. In my experience I have found the classic whites to be much stronger. The medium matters, as does the source and exposure, so starting at the lightest intensity is probably smart. Here's some 35mm stills showing the effect. I'm not sure how it would look with digital, but anything over 1/2 is too much in my opinion. Promist 1/4 Promist 1/2 And here's some cross processed reversal with a simple cheap net behind the lens. Hope that helps.

You should buy a 35mm film (photography) camera and shoot photos in different settings with different techniques. This is the best way to understand how film works and you will also learn the importance of composition and light. Using ebay, you could purchase a Nikon/Canon/Olympus/Minolta manual camera and lens, plus film for less than $150. Processing can be done at a photo-lab, drug store, or by purchasing your own scanner. If you want to learn how to shoot movie film you should take a course and borrow or 'rent' equipment, though many schools are liquidating their film gear so you may be able to find a good deal.

It may benefit you to watch b-roll production footage on films, and particularly directors you admire (youtube). You may be surprised how needlessly fastidious some directors can seem, even with frequent collaborators. Jean-Pierre Jeunet is a very picky director, and his films are visually stunning. The same could be said of Kubrick, who designed his own precision/custom made cardboard boxes just to store his scribbles. To answer your question, I would say the best example of micro-managing I can think of is Alfred Hitchcock putting his hands on Tippi Hedren's face and physically shaping her expression to his liking, then telling her to 'hold it' for a long exterior shot from the yard of the house to the upstairs bedroom window where she was standing looking out. (I believe that was "Marnie" 1964).