Satsuki Murashige

The sun is going to do way, way more as a hair light than those Aputure lights could do outside on a summer day. That’s why people shoot into backlight on day exteriors, you get the bright hair light for free.

Good luck with your shoot, David!

You seem to think that there are only two types of film productions - ‘fun with friends’ with no production company entity, and ‘big professional crew.’ From my own working experience, I can tell you that there is a huge range of shoots in-between these two poles - student films, self-financed narrative films, small commercials, corporate and documentary films. And that is where many of these issues can occur, since experience level will vary widely. You’re far less likely to have someone step up and say, ‘hey guys this is a bad idea. Let’s change it up.’ There’s nothing unrealistic about wanting to change that. As far as ‘Midnight Cowboy,’ you’re talking about a film that came out in 1969, more than 50 years ago. There were some extremely sketchy working practices back then that we have thankfully moved past. Most film producers no longer think it’s a good idea to shoot on an old contaminated nuclear site like ‘The Conquerer’ (1956), or to run a picture car at 80mph thru multiple intersections on live city streets like ‘The French Connection’ (1971). It was unnecessary back then, and it’s unnecessary now.

There’s quite a bit of depth of field with wide lenses in the Super 16 format. On an 8mm lens @ f/1.2 (usually T1.3), pCAM says: Focus = 4’. DoF = 5’7” - 3’1”. Focus = 6’. DoF = 10’6” - 4’2”. Focus = 10’. DoF = 35’5” - 5’10”. That’s not too bad, as long as you don’t get closer than 3’. The Circle of Confusion for these calculations is 0.0005”.

Not sure what this has to do with anything? My point is that all of the worker protections I mentioned (unions, workplace laws and regulations, 40hr work week, the weekend, OSHA) which we all take for granted today only came about because individuals in the workplace were not able to protect themselves. Again, replying to this: Nobody here is talking about a dangerous hobby like skydiving where people willingly choose to take on the risk for fun. People don’t PA for fun, they’re there to work and learn. And they should have the expectation of not being put in harm’s way while at work. I don’t think this is a controversial statement at all...

This is exactly the type of situation we are talking about. In the case of ‘Midnight Rider’ the director called for a dangerous shot, and none of the keys put their foot down and said no. That’s how most set accidents happen, someone in charge has a bad idea and no one speaks up. Peer pressure and the hierarchical structure of a film crew are powerful things and not to be underestimated.

I think it certainly can, it just depends on the look you want. The usual default day exterior approach these days tends to be shooting into backlight with a large sidey bounce for the key. That doesn’t necessarily mean sunset, just when the sun isn’t directly overhead. Maybe 3-4pm-ish. Also, specular reflections off the water combined with lens diffusion tends to look pretty. But that’s not to say other approaches can’t work. If you’re also doing a product shot, just make sure that you allot a decent chunk of time in the schedule for it. Those tend to take quite a bit of time to make them look good.

I’m under no illusions about what can and has happened in the low budget filmmaking world, I’ve been there too. It happens too often on larger budgeted films as well. That doesn’t mean we should be encouraging more of it. Rather the opposite, which was my point. As far as your assumption that film crew members can protect themselves on set while under intense pressure to ‘get the shot,’ always remember Sarah Jones. And frankly if this were at all historically true, there would have been no need for the invention of unions, workplace laws and regulations, the 40hr work week, the weekend, and OSHA...

Hi David, What’s on the shot list? Just a wide of the models and the product shot? Seems like it might be better to shoot the wide late in the day for a lower sun and shoot the product shot under the overhead at midday, but I guess it depends on the look you’re going for.

Yes, I agree. I can only speak for MMJ Contax Zeiss, but they are quite a bit more modern looking than Lomos, with more contrast and sharpness. Very similar to Zeiss Super Speeds. I only have two Pentax lenses, the newer SMC 50mm f/1.4 M and SMC 35mm f/2 M. They are not as low contrast as Stuart’s Super Takumars, but even the SMCs look closer to Cooke Speed Panchros and Lomos than the Contax Zeiss. From reputation, the Leica R (depending on vintage) are supposed to be warmer and more contrasty than their Contax Zeiss counterparts. Can’t confirm that though, have only shot with them a few times.

I agree that Joshua and his team are the ones who will have to make that judgement call in the end. I’ve refrained from making comments about the obvious safety issues until now because I don’t know his experience or his personal circumstances, and in a professional forum it’s always best to give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. But sometimes we forget that it’s not just professionals who are reading and posting too. Not that pros are immune from safely issues either, far from it. My concern is less about the circumstances of Joshua’s particular shoot, and more about generalizing that advice to any young filmmakers who may be reading this and are planning their own shoots. I don’t want them to come away with the idea that this is how safety on professional sets should be treated. Because it really isn’t. Safety is a mindset. You plan for multiple what-if scenarios and have backup plans. You don’t rush safety rigging. It is every person’s responsibility on set to point out safety issues and concerns. And even with all that planning and attention, things still can go wrong. Imagine what happens when everyone just says, ‘screw it, let’s just get the shot.’ People who have that attitude tend to get remembered for a very long time when things go wrong. I know a few veteran crew members who are still furious at Jan De Bont for an accident on ‘Basic Instinct’ that happened while trying to steal a car shot. And that was 30 years ago. I say this as someone who has had the privilege of working with producers, 1st ADs, DPs, 1st ACs, and Key Grips who have stood up for me as a young person on set and kept me out of some dangerous situations. More recently, I’ve been the one to have to step in for my crew and nip some bad ideas in the bud. And I’ve also been in a few hairy situations where things almost went very, very bad. I’ve been lucky for the most part. But I’d be a fool to rely on that going forward, and I hope that everyone else I work with feels the same way too. There’s a reason that the nearest hospital information is listed at the top of every call sheet, and why production makes you fill out emergency contact paperwork before starting work. Nobody wants to make that phone call, but it does get called from time to time. That is a horrible day, and one that I hope no one here has to experience going forward.

I dunno about airline travel, but for equipment cases I use an R12 with the large wheels which works great. I don’t bother with the top shelf, too many screws and too fiddly. I know one DP who made a custom wooden shelf with a lip for his R12 that just drops on - you could try that if you need the top shelf. I have a feeling that the front wheels would get trashed pretty quickly if you checked the cart for air travel, but I’m sure others who’ve actually done it can tell you for sure. I haven’t tried it with mine yet.

I haven’t commented on the safety aspect so far as Joshua hasn’t asked for any advice in that regard, but I feel I need to say something here. This is really sketchy advice, to be honest. The chances of a serious accident or traffic incident are not insignificant, with the shot as described. Multiple streets presumably means walking or running thru intersections, which means cross traffic. This is a very bad idea if you have a lax attitude toward road safety, as demonstrated above. There are ways to mitigate some of the risk, such as hiding cuts and splitting the shot into multiple setups on areas of road that are easier to control. That’s pretty much up to the filmmakers and producers to come up with a plan for that. It sounds like there might not be a lot experience there, though I hope that’s not the case. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to say in essence, ‘don’t worry about it.’ You should be very worried about it. Safety is ultimately more important than the camera blocking or the exposure. Also, I have to say, the idea of putting PAs (who might not know any better) at risk like this just to get a cool shot really rubs me the wrong way. Sorry if this offends anyone, but I think it really needed to be said.

I agree, 16mm is the way to go. Use a fairly wide fast lens and you might be able to manage it. Look into the Zeiss Ultra 16 primes, they open up to T1.3 and go very wide - 6,8,9.5,12,14mm.

I don’t think stopping down for more depth of field is very realistic if you’re shooting guerilla style. I expect you’ll end up at T2.8 at the deepest, but more likely T2 or wider. Hire the most experienced focus puller you can afford!

It would also be good to time out the shot and know how long of a take it needs to be. 400’ of 16mm is 11min. 400’ of 4-perf 35mm is only 4min.

Take a light meter out there and find out! That’s one of the nice things about shooting on film, no need to take the camera out there to figure this out.

Hi Phil, I sold my Magliner Senior Cart a few years ago, otherwise I would measure it for you! I presume you’ve already checked out the online catalog? https://backstageweb.com/catalogs

My guess is that it’s to prevent camera shadow on the actors. If you look at the layout of the dance floor, it appears that the dolly is supposed to truck right underneath the overhead lights. The flags appear to be at the right height to cover the camera thru the whole move.

I think this would be a good basis for a new thread - share your ‘magic’ tricks!

Great test, Daniel! I think your ‘magic trick’ point is a good one. I wouldn’t begrudge a DP for their showmanship, if that’s what it is. You have to justify your day rate somehow! Magic is fun, and when the cinematographic craft was more mysterious, it was more fun too.

I think what Stuart was pointing out is that if you attempt to keep the plane of focus in the same place for each image, compensating for the difference in close focus with the focus ring of the lens, then the images are the same. Of course, this is not the typical way that diopters are used - your example of achieving closer focus is the most common use. But Peter’s original question was, why use a diopter if the desired focus can be reached on the lens without it? Personally, I think some piece of information is missing in Peter’s question. If you put a +1/2 Diopter in front of the lens and don’t touch the focus ring, your plane of focus will be much closer and your subject will be out of focus at the same distance. To keep the subject in focus at 4’6”, Peter’s DP would have had to shift the focus ring closer to infinity (focus would be 2m or 6’6” at infinity). In which case, as Stuart has pointed out, the image should not look that different. So it seems more likely that the DP then moved the camera closer or moved the subject closer to camera to achieve the softer background. But if the lens could actually achieve the same focus without the diopter, then the image probably wouldn’t look that different.

Very cool, thanks for the details Greg. Good luck on the film!

I think you have two factors to consider here: 1. Angle of view. Since your 20’x12’ screen is the ‘window,’ the landscape should extend beyond it in theory, only being cut-off by the edges of the screen. That would make me think that a wider focal length would work better. I would suggest shooting a few different focal lengths for safety and erring on the wider side, something like 14,18,21,24,27,32mm (on S35 format). A wide zoom lens may be more economical to rent at a certain point. 2. Degree of magnification. As you say, you want objects to appear proportionally natural. So then you should make sure that when you shoot, there are no objects within 15’ of the lens. Otherwise, they will appear foreshortened and like they should be closer than they appear to be. Camera format will also make a big difference. You should be able to test all of this before going out on location, shooting in an urban landscape would give you the same information. The only issue would be in projecting the image, although maybe you can preview it in pre-vis software.

Does this mean your in-camera pixel aspect ratio will be 1.59:1 before de-squeezing? But you will still be recording the full 1.44:1 open gate? Also very curious to hear about your experience with these lenses - I notice a slight amount of barrel distortion which gives the image a rounded feel to me. Really pulls the eye towards the center of the frame. Seems to be on contrasty side as well, very nice.