timHealy

Thanks for all the input and dialogue. I passed the script along to a friend to read to get her impression to see if I may be misjudging or missing something completely. I also put in a request to see some of the directors previous work. Then I will approach the director with what I liked about the script and what I have reservations about to see if there is a plan to make this into something the script doesn't suggest. Something that will bring it up to a higher level. I guess one has to remember the interview process is not just one way. We as DP's are interviewing them as well. At this time I can't make a judgement about the schedual as I haven't seen anything on paper, but it would be typical that there will never be enough time and everything will be rushed. We'll see though. for Lars: it is S16. For Stuart: Is Sod a relative to Murphy? Best Tim

Hey Ken, To add to what David and Wendell said: David is right. They typically have 6 1k FCM types bulbs and have two 60 amp 3 pin stage plugs for two three bulb curcuits. But you could put in any bulbs you want (well 1k and down). I did a job for Fred Elmes once where he had us put one FCM in one circuit and two in the other. (It was a cheap job with no dimmer racks). But that has to be planned. Usually space lights are rigged and it will be time consuming if you want to change bulbs once they are up. It usually has to be done with a lift one by one, and set pieces and other things might be in the way, etc, etc. There is also a socopex version (Ruby Seven has a Soco version too) for a better dimmer board control where you can turn them off one by one if production has rented the right amount of dimmer racks for the job. Or you can use Socos and "break in's" on the feed side and plug bulbs in one at a time to straight non dimmed power. Space lights also have a skirt that fits over the cylindrical silk skirt down to the bottom, but leaving the bottom disk open. And for those tight spaces there is a two K version. Most of the time, they are used to create a layer of base exposure in a large space say a large stage or industrial building. And other lights are added on top of that depending what one is doing. But you could certainly use them as your only light source as well. Best Tim

Since there are many folks here who are on different levels of their DP careers, from students to full time, to experienced technicians aspiring to be full time shooters, I was wondering how some make their decisions to do or not do a film. The obvious answers are easy in the sense the director may have talent, the script may be a good one, the actors are great, and so on and so forth. It is when those elements are not so clear. I have been offered a film, but really don't care for the script and the filmmakers are young. They may be talented but I have not seen any of their earlier work to make that assumption. I know some may say shoot everything you can, and at least get something on your reel. Perhaps someone on the shoot will have work for you in the future. And others who may say if your not into it don't do it, thereby remaining available for something better to come along. And I certainly would not want to put myself in a position where I may not want to be there. so that may be my answer right there. Much of this business can be a matter of taste, so perhaps everyone has a their own litmus test. Thanks for the time, Best, Tim

since there are three catagories for people in the eye care industry (well at least here in the US) let me ask this question for clarification. When discussing surgery, an optometrist may have some advice but shouldn't one go see an ophthalmologist for advice on corrective surgery? Perhaps one that can give you the straight facts without trying to sell you lasik or lasek? an optician is a person who makes eyes glasses. an optometrist is a person who can examine the eyes for defects and prescribe corrective lenses. an ophthalmologist is a person who can do surgery on your eyes. Thanks Tim

try and search this topic. It gets asked all the time. David Mullen has contributed a fair amount to the knowledge base in general and this specifically. Tim

I'm not sure if I understand your question. Are you thinking about about underexposure and that's it, or underexposure and pushing the film? It looks to me that the film is exposed properly but the windows and such are completely blown out so that stuff is way overexposed. Having underexposed portions are fine as long as there are properly exposed or overexposed parts included in the image. Like a window or a light. It even could be an out of focus bare bulb in the background. Personally, I think underexposure by itself, with no bright proper exposure or overexposure areas is bad news for your image. Better to expose properly and print down in post. So at least you have the info in the negative. Just curious about where you going? Best Tim PS it looks to me that they may have used a lot of color correct in post via a digital intermediate.

Ever since I heard about radial keratotomy in the 80's I have been asking ophthalmologists about all these surgeries including the latest and the usual answer I get is that they prefer to not operate on an otherwise healthy organ. Last year I asked again and my doctor felt that even though many people have had it and are happy, there is still a 4% chance of error or dissatifaction. That is 4 out of every 100 people and he feels too much room for error. So I have chosen not to do it. But I think this group on this site would be the people who are more likely to see halos and other things. I kind of think that most people don't ever see the floaters we all have in out eyes. I see them all the time so surgery anything short of perfect will probably drive me nuts. I think it would be prudent to visit an ophthalmologist who does not sell any sort of lasik or lasek surgeries no matter how good their recommendations come. I understand there are people who would not benefit from the surgery so one must do their research, get a complete un biased check up or analysis, and get all the facts before electing to do this .... or not. Good luck, Tim

Very funny stuff David! Best Tim

where are you located? Do you need someone in your country/state? Or city/country/state of your job? Tim

If this was the same restored 70mm print made in the early 90's, (or was it 89??) I thought it was spectacular. I was able to see it at the Zeigfeld in NYC. The only way to see a film and one of the few times I have been able to compare a video version to a projected film while it was fresh in my mind. The next day I rented the film on VHS (it was the early 90's. Not much DVDs out at the time if they were at all) and was completely shocked how much the impact of the film was not there at all. It was as if it wasn't the same movie. NYC could use a 70mm film festival. cheers Tim

Have you thought about your basic 18k hmi fresnel through some sort of diffusion frame? It would have a much wider and uniform spread than a 12k par. Best Tim

I would shoot from NJ towards the east early in the morning or from Queens towards the west in the evening. The reason being that I like the look of that sharp gradation from dark blue/night sky to just a bit of light blue on the horizon. With Manhattan you'll have to do that. But you may get more office lights in buildings switched on shooting from Queens in the evening...and the Empire State Building. Their lights go off at midnight. Best, Tim

Isn't it possible for film to suffer from a type of "dry rot" for lack of a better word, after a period of time, that may lead to emulsion chipping around the perfs? I had this occur with old short ends used as scratch test rolls. Perhaps John Pytlak could comment on the life of film not properly stored to manufacturers recommendations. Best Tim

ebay took it down. Did you e mail them of the potential scam? Or did they find it on their own? Tim

when rigging to trusses and pipe there are an assortment of clamps that are used. The best ones are 2k and 1k pipe clamps. There are also chessborough type clamps that may be used. Some grips use aluminum speed rail for other smaller rigs, but they are not as strong as steel. You basically need to use the right material for what ever the job is and the weight of the lamp or rigs to be supported. In addition to cardellinis there are mafer and c clamps with channeled steel and a 1 or 2k stud or recepter. Stirrups are a terrific tool on a satge too. They are uses to rig froma truss or pipe that can be lowered no further. They hang like a pipe clamp and extend down into a set where a light with a pipe clamp can easily be added. In a big stage rig, with heavy lights, pipe clamps are the way to go. I would save the cardelinis and mafers for smallers units on smaller sets. But if you have scaffolding you may not want to rig to the scaffold itself. You could easily build a work deck out a window and use lights on stands as normal. It gives you flexibilty during the shoot. Just make sure you use safety rails and plenty of sandbags or even grip chain to screw lights down to the deck. Best Tim

Ahh yeah...I had a typo. I ment to say 7229 not 7279. Sorry Tim PS Personally i have always thought 7245 is and has been an outstanding film stock ever since it came out. Was it about 1990 or so?

Anyone have an opinion about the difference between 500T 7279 and Expression 500T 7218? Both are Vision 2 500 ASA stocks. I personally haven't shot 500 since I used 7279 on something a while back and did not like the results. It was very grainy in darker portions of the image. Thanks, Tim

Hey Claudio, How are you? I worked on the music video Erotica for Madonna way back when that you had gaffed. And I worked a day on a Wachovia commericial you shot. The one with a couple in elegant black tie and dress canoeing to a house on a lake for a party. Really nice looking video in th JC piece. Wondering if you could answer the question about warmth in it? How did you approach it, what did you do and how much did the colorist contribute? Could you breiefly explain the difference between and e series and c series ananmprphic lens? Ah just one more..In the close ups did you use a chinese lantern, shoot into a fresnel lamp dimmed down, or just use the covered wagon? Thanks for the time. Tim Healy

David, If I can ask a question related to this thread: I have been doing my lighting work on two different films lately that are both shooting 4 perf super 35 and framing for 2.35 with sperical lenses. But Scorcese movie is using a common head and Spike Lee is using the 2.35 frame centered. In your opinion what are the pros and cons of each method. The thing I can already see is that the framing for TV in the full frame exposure of the Scorcese movie wouldn't have any headroom issues and Spike's movie might have to reframe for TV. What are your thoughts? Best Tim PS Scorcese is making a film inspired by the Hong Kong movie "Infernal Affairs" shot by Michael Balhaus and Spike is shooting a bank robbery movie shot by Matty Libatique.

Hey Rolfe, Glad to help. Talk to your favorite colorist before your next shoot. Perhaps you can get an idea about how much smoke is too little, not enough, or just right for your next shoot. About the warm look, It could be about 1/2 CTO but I don't think it is quite that warm, or it could be something else. Perhaps a quarter CTO and the colorist did the rest for most of it. But what I did seem to notice was I thought they were using a hanging Chinese lantern perhaps off a boom pole next to the actors/musicians faces in the close ups. I mean it looks like it was right up against their heads or right behind them, but the bulbs inside were dimmed way down. No need for half orange then. But also in one shot I saw what I though was a lantern behind them, but the light was panned off like it was a fresnel dimmed way down too. It moved too smooth to be a hand held lantern. But it was pointed right at the camera and again no need for gel. The ideas go flying all over the place on a music video but as long as they keep the final look in mind, it may be color on the lens, color on the lights, or color from a dimmer. Take a look again and see if you agree. By the way, I have never shot an anamorphic film, but wouldn't the horizonatl blue streaks suggest it was shot in scope with scope lenses and not S35 with spherical lenses? Best Tim PS I am not sure what you mean by foreground control. In the close ups? Wide?

Video tends to have a larger depth of field than its film cousins so that if one uses an ND filter, you can open up the lens and decrease the depth of field, and defocus the background. Many believe that this helps to make something shot in video look like film. I don't agree with this idea in that if you look at a film like Citizen Kane, which Orsen Wells is well known to have had a huge depth of field, it still looks like film. It doesn't look like video. So personally, I believe depth of field has nothing to do with making a video look like film or vice versa. On to your second question, what are you trying to achieve with trying to figure out how CTB affects wattage? They really have nothing to do with each other. But if I were to hazard a guess, if full blue cuts down light by two stops, then it might be comparable to a 125 watt size bulb. And yes you can use a lens wipe on a filter. Best Tim PS Soory for the some duplication. I started writing this before laurants was up.

I couldn't see that streaming video yesterday. It could be as simple as a 4x8 bounce board (poly) goal posted on a pipe and hit with lights from the ground. Or it may be a 8x8 or 12x12. The hard way, depending on the production, money, cameraman, could be a lift with a large light direct through a large frame. I'm sure you get the point. It is a large soft source. I doubt it was kinos unless it was a few image 80's hanging on the pipe or a blanket light. But I would bet the first scenario as hitting a bounce form the ground with tungsten would be easier than lifts or hanging lights or building a blanket light and hanging it. Unless the production had money. Tim

I like the look of car commercials that shoot just at magic hour. Enough exposure, with out specular hits from the sun. The whole sky becomes a soft source reflected off the car. or in this case perhaps a truck. The downside would be not much shooting time. Unless one would do this up north during the summer.... Tim

To me they look like beam projectors. It is an old Hollywood light that some have rediscovered in the last 10 years (well at least thats when I first saw one) Mole started making a modern version about 5 years ago or so and produce them in the 2k, 5k, and I think in the ten or twenty K variety. There is no fresnel. Just clear glass with a concave mirrored surface, that can easily be broken if dropped. It is basically a tugsten spot light type beam. But in the video there is more to it. There is smoke in there on the set and if you increase your contrast in the transfer room, it'll blow out as you see in the final piece. Great video. Nice production design Best Tim

I have done that with a carefully measured piece of black paper tape and my Arri SR, but I do agree with Bob that it is not a great idea. I enjoy tinkering with things and the challange to try it and it worked. But it was my camera and I would only have myself to blame if I broke something. Arri in Blauvelt, NY is not too far away if I needed to drop it off for repair. Remember it was MY CAMERA. Don't do it if you can't pay for repairs. Tim