Jayson Crothers

WEEK THREE of Principal Photography Final stretch of the shoot ? I always forget that 6 day weeks are a tough way to make a movie but are a necessary evil on low-budgets; you need that one day off just to rest and then you're ready to actually catch up on real life stuff the next day??.but you can't. =) Day 13 was our last day at the house ? we spent most of the night doing exteriors. I swapped the porch light for a 213 on a dimmer and flew a 12x12 ultrabounce high with our usual maxi-brute; next to that we had a mighty on the pin shooting almost straight down at the corner of the front yard of our location; the large soft source gave me a base ambience and the mighty provided a very real looking streetlight ? by dropping it on the pin, the fall off also felt very real. I shot most of this night at a T2.8 and played most of the scene at about 1 ½ - 2 stops under. What was interesting to see in the dailies was that the warm yellow streetlight made the porch light feel relatively blue (it's a trick of the eye, but interesting how pronounced the effect is). We shot some nice, contrasty stuff here before heading out to do our one car dialogue scene. This had been something of a sticking point for a while; it's only about 1 ½ pages of dialogue between two people, but it's still a significant story point (it's akin to their first date). Peter and I both agreed we didn't want to use hostess trays (shooting from outside the car felt wrong), but our budget simply wouldn't allow for a shotmaker of any kind (plus the necessary police escort you need to hire when you use them). Peter asked about shooting in available light only, which I knew wouldn't be entirely possible, but I was intrigued by how little we could get away with. In the end it was a hybrid ? we shot entirely from within the car and selected a street near the house location that was well lit; I mounted a single LED panel light outside the car (using a secured suction cup on the front windshield and pointing down) to give me a little ambience and then relied on the available light to do the rest. The panel light was appealing because it runs off of batteries and is dimmable; I shot at a T2 and set the panel light to be about 3 stops under that; the available light on the street ranged everywhere from nothing to a T5.6. Dailies were very dark, but what's great is that you never feel the panel light ? it's just dim enough that it feels like natural ambient light but the actual streetlights and signs overpower it as you pass through them. I was very happy with the results and am ultimately glad we went for this simple approach. I wasn't thrilled about having the actors actually drive, but the only saving grace was that the road we were on was literally abandoned at the time we were shooting (5 lanes of nothing). We had to shoot a pivotal scene at sunrise that had me a little stressed ? we had to shoot the interiors that matched it 2 days before, and since I was never able to scout this location properly during prep (see my earlier posts to read my complaints about this) I had been basing the interior lighting off of educated guesses and Sunpath. We had a very narrow window of time before traffic nearby would become too bad for sound and because the scene was largely hand-held (which meant I had to be flexible and ready to shoot in almost any direction), there was very little I could do with grip to help things. In seeing the dailies, there was a mistake made and this footage was all transferred very dark, so later this week I'll get a new transfer of it, but in general I think it matched our interiors close enough. Day 14 was our toughest day of the shoot ? we had 7 ½ pages to shoot and one location had to stand in for 2 different place; the exteriors, living room and kitchen had to stand in for one of our female leads and a small back bedroom stood in for the lead's best friend; it was a cramped apartment in Canyon Country. The first 2 scenes were day interiors (and this whole week was also overnights) and both featured large windows, so again I was faced with trying to get the windows to glow in a believable fashion ? our style of shooting and the small space made this very time-consuming and these scenes took much longer than I'd hoped. After that we had what appeared to a be simple night interior, but since we start inside a living room and then pan to see outside through the front windows, we had to light a night exterior as well ? I had to think ahead to our night exteriors here as well since they'd all eventually tie together. As luck would have it, we had a freak electrical storm roll in that brought lightning and rain; we had to run inside to block the next scene while the rain quickly passed. Again, the blocking made it tough to light the exteriors because the camera moved around so much that we saw about 180 degrees and where we didn't see couldn't be used because I'd throw a shadow on the actors ? these night exteriors became bounce cards above the actors (in an odd U-shape to get some modeling on them) and splashes of light in the background to create depth and separation. The interior bedroom was all day scenes and was about 10' by 10' with one giant window along a wall. I couldn't shoot towards the window because it was too big to really sell as daylight, but looking away from the window also meant I was constantly throwing shadows on everything ? add in some camera moves and it made for a long day (only 13 1/2 hours, but it felt much longer). We had a bizarre heat wave too, so that wasn't helping things go any faster. However, we got everything we needed (and even a few extra pieces) and almost made it out on time; I was ultimately happy with everything we did, but it just seemed to be one of those days where nothing seemed to "click" correctly. Our last 4 days were all spent in an Italian restaurant that was dressed to be a tacky Chinese restaurant. Day 15 was all night exteriors ? again, our need to be flexible made the set-ups take a long time in the beginning because we were lighting for essentially 360 degrees. All of these scenes took place in a small parking lot on the side of the restaurant; one direction you saw the restaraunt, another direction was about a 1/4 mile of open field, and the other two directions were a road that curved around us. We flew a 12x12 ultrabounce off the roof of the building with a series of par cans into it (we'd considered a maxi-brute, but it seemed like overkill to drag it to the roof when we knew we wouldn't need all 9 globes) ? a mighty raked along the building to mimic a security light that was actually there (we turned it off because it came in at about 9600 degrees) and a 5K provided a wash of light across the actual parking lot. We clamped a mighty with a street-light gel pack onto a telephone poll for some architectural lighting and a maxi-brute was hidden behind the restaurant to throw light out into the open field (I typically dislike night exteriors where the action is lit but then the rest of the world just vanishes into nothingness). We positioned 2 10K's far from the set to be on standby for lighting buildings that were far away in the deep background. As usual, once we were lit we moved quickly. This was one of the few set-ups were I was able to find a lighting set-up that also supported our actors - our lead is 25 in reality but was playing an 18 year old; I discovered during my tests that to sell that he needed a very frontal soft light (plus he has extremely deep set eyes and ALWAYS puts his head down when action is called). Most of the night he was blocked with the rooftop 5K as a backlight so I could bring in a 4x8 bounce to key him with. Conversely, our lead actress looks best with a high, hard frontal light (she also looks really good with a soft direct sidelight, but only if it's at an exact 90 degree angle to her) ? since she was blocked to play directly towards the 5K all night, I was happy. The final three days were a mixture of some dynamic work and some scenes that just felt a little off ? most of the scenes we shot in the restaurant kitchen were great ? I swapped all of the fluorescents for tungsten balanced and used a single kino tube from time to time but otherwise we just flew through these scenes. All of the appliances and such created excellent depth that made for interesting compositions and we were very much maintaining the style of our film. The main dining area just baffled me a little ? there wasn't a lot of depth (it's not a terribly big restaurant and the lay-out is pretty open) and I always felt a little like we were stumbling to find interesting ways to block and shoot the scenes ? there aren't a lot of scenes in the main dining area, but they're pivotal ones, so I'm disappointed that I don't feel as confident about them as I do for most of the rest of the film. The lighting was very simple ? I'd planned on bringing our streetlights in through a few windows, but once we started to do so on the first day it just felt unnatural to me and I dismissed them. Instead we put 213's into all of the overhead fixtures (which were these heavy red china hats) and dimmed them up and down to taste; in closer shots we'd wrap 216 around them to take some of the harshness away, but for the most part 80% of these scenes were lit with just the practicals. The last 2 days I used a 2x2 book-light through a 4x4 opal frame to key our actors because we shot a series of scenes that introduce our lead's love interest and they share their first few scenes together in the film, so I wanted it to seem a little more gentle than just bare overhead bulbs. Due to our strange overnight schedule and a mix up with our post house, we were about a week behind in the dailies ? it made me nervous to a certain extent because as we went along I kept getting bolder and bolder with underexposure. Even now I'm still waiting to see some dailies from the last few days. We had a few scenes that came back too dark overall, but it's a transfer error and I'm waiting to see the new transfer from them. All in all I was thrilled with the whole shoot; the entire experience was, frankly, the best I've ever had on any shoot. I had a director who knew his story front and back and knew precisely what he needed and knew when he had it and would move on. Great communication and complete trust in each other ? I can't wait to work with Peter again; watching him work with his actors was a real joy. The actors were all fantastic as well; not one bit of ego from anyone and they all delivered the types of performances that inspire you to do better work. Even our day players with a single line were great. My camera crew was top-notch under extreme pressure ? Melvina Rapozo (1st AC) has been with me since I first picked up a camera and I can't imagine doing this film without her. Teague Hunkizer and Robby Hart (2nd AC and Loader) were new to me and were absolutely fantastic. I also had a camera PA who took impeccable notes and kept a photo log of every set-up (as soon as I can post some of them I will); Scotty Field was invaluable in helping maintain the continuity of my work and I'm grateful we found each other before the shoot. My grip crew were rock-stars ? Charles Matthews (Key Grip), Wilson Weaver (BB Grip), Alex Hamiltion (3rd Grip), and Alex Konowitz (Intern) ? all very funny guys and incredibly resourceful and fast; I never heard them say they couldn't do something and they almost always came in ahead of their estimates. A special thanks goes to Shannon Davis, who was originally my Key Grip but had to bow out at the last moment; he put together an amazing crew and then came out on his own time whenever he could to lend a hand - few people have that kind of character. And of course I've raved about Emily Topper (Chief Lighting Technician) and the rest of the electric crew; Derek Vass (BB Electric ? and seriously the fastest and best I've ever had), Robin Mallard (3rd Electric), and Paul Seradarian (4th Electric) ? the most efficient and forward thinking lighting crew I've had the pleasure of working with. I also had the best experience with a Script Supervisor on this show ? Erin Connarn was not only superb at her job, but was also very friendly and very collaborative; we'd often jump back and forth over "the line" during a scene on purpose and she was invaluable to sit with and double check myself to make sure we weren't missing something; she also catches EVERYTHING. Things I was happy with ? not being too precious with anything and being open to discovering things as they happen; it's not an approach that works for every film, but I was happy to explore this style of working because it lead me to discover a lot of new ways to see and approach my work in the future. I was happy to be pushing myself into more and more underexposure; I'd never call the film dark, but I enjoyed letting go of always having to see people, even in key moments. I used much more hard light than I usually do, which was fun ? I'm still trying to figure out how exactly to use it and I'm enjoying the process of discovery. Trusting a good crew was invaluable; on low budgets you often get use to having to double check everything and to think of everything just to be certain ? once I realized that everyone was on top of their jobs and was able to really let go and delegate, I realized how much energy it freed up to focus on MY job! I also discovered the joker HMI ? even though I'm not a big fan of HMI's, Emily introduced me to this unit and I'm going to insist on having one every time I take out an HMI package; very small, powerful, and very versatile; it was the last-minute life saver all of week one. I'm also grateful I learned how to use/read printer lights when I was just starting out - no matter the budget, when I shoot on 35mm I'm going to insist on printing SOMETHING just so I can check the lights and make sure everything is as it should be. Things to do differently next time ? INSIST on better prep; quantity doesn't equal quality and while on paper we had a fair amount of time, the actual usefulness was largely wasted. Time and (I believe) significant money could have been saved with just a few more days of preparation and discussion. As accommodating as I am with everyone on a production (I roll with a lot of punches) I think I need to learn to put my foot down and insist on certain things that I KNOW will come back to haunt the production. I won't use a Moviecam in the future; I like everything about the camera except for the viewfinder ? far too dark for my liking. I make it a point to keep a light set and am generally quite jovial on set ? I sometimes feel like that is mistaken for being a push over; I don't ride my crew or bark at anyone because what's the point? However, I had one department on this show that was often stomping on my last nerve and often times would drop a ball that I'd have to pick up and make work. I understand mistakes happen and sometimes things are either just innocent blunders or unavoidable issues (especially in low budgets), but when it happens again and again??in the future I may need to decide that enough is enough and demand that people step up more to their responsibilities. I also need to insist on watching dailies in a better environment with my director; with everyone spread out across the city and being on an odd schedule it was tough to convince everyone that we needed to sit together and screen dailies in a controlled environment of some kind. What ended up happening was Peter would watch DVD dailies on a laptop while I was lighting at the start of the day (arguably the worst way to screen dailies). How it could have been avoided on this show, I'm not sure, but I intend to try to prevent it from happening again in the future. Oh, and a good Boom Operator is worth double whatever they're paying him/her. =) While I can't post any stills (either frame grabs or from my own camera), I'll try to post some lighting diagrams as soon as I get a moment to scan them in. Now for a little rest and then off to my next shoot; a 35mm Anamorphic B&W film noir! I love this job???.

WEEK TWO of Principal Photography This was the week I was most worried about ? nearly half the movie takes place in our leads home and we had to get it all done in 7 days. Beyond the high volume of work was the concern about things becoming stagnant; I was worried we'd fall into routines of how we lit and blocked scene after scene after scene in such a confined space. The house was essentially one long room; there was the front door leading into the living room which was open into the dining room as well (the production designer was very helpful in creating a sense of two spaces between these rooms), then a doorway into the kitchen and our leads bedroom. Days 7 and 8 found us exclusively in our leads bedroom, about 11 feet by 13 feet and 13 pages to shoot. Peter and I were most concerned about this space because after some sparse dressing, there was literally no room to move around and we were anxious about maintaining our long lens feel in this space. In the end I think that concern was what helped us because we were relentless in crawling all over the room to find ways to block and shoot our scenes. Our first scene up was one of the scenes we'd be dreading from day one of prep ? our lead had a 3 ½ page dialogue scene with a clock radio (he's called into a talk show host). It starts with him unable to sleep, so he gets up, calls in, turns on the lights in his room, and moves around a bit as he talks. During prep I had spoken with Emily (my CLT) about wanting a very warm, yellowish color for our streetlights since they'd be a main motivating source through-out the movie (about ½ the film is night interior); she suggested Lee Yellow 101 combined with a ½ CTS ? I saw the combo and loved it; it's a very heavy look, but felt very appropriate to both reality and maintaining a real sense of warmth. Through the bedroom window we put a mighty up high with the gel pack to simulate a streetlight and next to that we put a 12x12 ultra bounce with a maxi-brute with the same gel pack to simulate ambient light from the streetlight. I found myself placing units and then panning them off of where I wanted them to hit, so this scene was a key example of most of the lighting being indirect or "off". We also rigged two practicals to be tied into small tweenies we mounted on the ceiling into 2x2 cards. Once we were done we did a final blocking and part way through Peter and I realized it actually felt much better if our lead never turned the light on, so we ended up playing it quite dark with just the ambient light filtering into the room and being naturally cut by the window and blinds. I shot at a T2.5 and the shadows fell down at around 3-4 stops under. In the dailies a few days later this scene was transferred too bright, but a quick pass on my laptop showed me that it was right on target. Most of day 7 was a breeze actually because once we had the room rigged we were only waiting on moving the camera around; a bounce card here or there was brought in but otherwise we flew through it. Our "coverage" was, as usual, unconventional, but we were able to find a lot of interesting ways to block and shoot all of our scenes; we even managed to squeeze a dolly into the space and did an entire scene as a moving master; my grips have been fast and fantastic about always finding a way to do whatever gets tossed at them. Day 8 was our lovemaking scene, which I played entirely in silhouette against the one window in the room. Our lead actress is African American and the streetlight color played beautifully on her skin; it plays a little heavy on our male lead (relatively pale skin tone), but it worked over all. I was a little nervous about having no fill since our lenses just kept getting longer and longer, and at one point we were about 7 feet away with a 135mm shooting essentially inserts of eyes and lips, but as they kiss they completely block the background and there's NOTHING in frame except black. The director wasn't as nervous, but I had about 800' of this scene printed to be sure; I saw the print the next afternoon and was surprised by how well the 5279 held up even at 800 asa; it's DARK, but it helped sell the slightly dreamy romantic nature of the scene. 135mm wide open at 7 feet is so shallow that I'm still amazed my focus puller doesn't hate me (much of the scene was shot between 36fps and 48fps, so the stops got wider as the lenses got longer). Days 9-12 were a bit of a blur ? we had so much to shoot (and since Peter loves to be able to shoot in any direction, or to be able to add a dolly or a big pan at the last moment) that the lighting was basically a generic night look and a generic day look. At night we had a few practicals in the main dining room and the crew rigged a small assortment of tweenies and babies into various cards in the ceiling; we could quickly re-position them as needed to boost ambience or push light from a certain direction while never seeing any of the equipment. I had a modified china-ball with a 2 feet skirt above the dining room table (because of a small snafu, we didn't have a picture-friendly practical for this room, so it was the only non-motivated source in the film) and in the kitchen we used the 2 existing ceiling practicals with small diffusion skirts over them to take away their harshness. Through each window I had either a 10K or a 5K with our streetlight gel-pack plus maxi-brutes with the same gel-pack into frames of ultra-bounce for ambience. Depending on the scene, I could dial in more or less ambience by turning maxi globes on or off and we were able to quickly roll around the 10K's and 5K's to create some depth in each room. Our few day scenes (which were all shot at night since we were in overnights this whole week) mostly involved removing the gel-packs and adding additional 10K's or mighty's into the ultrabounce frames to boost the overall ambient light coming into the rooms. The real trouble here came in needing to pan across windows from time to time during our day scenes ? to get an even spread that was hot enough to sell as a blown-out day exterior was challenging and a little time-consuming; I stayed at a T2.8 for nearly all of these days, finding the night scenes played best at about 1 ½ stops under (to start) and the blown windows only sold if they were at least a T22 or hotter. I'd love to post stills (either frame grabs or from my own camera) but the Producer won't allow it I'm afraid. Day 12 also had us moving to a house next door to shoot a few interior scenes in the lead's mothers room ? another tough set-up because the room was about 11' by 11' with two windows and we had both day and night scenes to do; our last scene caught me off-gaurd because it was a night scene and the sun began to come up (I lost track of the time since I was inside the entire night); the grips scrambled to tent the windows as best they could, but we had our ultrabounce frames set back from the windows and the best I could do was to turn on additional maxi-brute globes to overpower the blue that was seeping in and go with longer lenses to hide the windows a bit. One thing I was very happy with this week was returning all of the HMI's and being strictly Tungsten - I prefer their quality of light and reliability. This entire week was very tiring because we were doing all overnights. I've read for years now how DP's complain about DVD dailies and now I know why; they're the worst possible way to judge your work. Everything looks a little soft, it all looks lower in contrast, color is way off??..it got to the point where I stopped looking at the DVD's altogether because it was depressing and horribly misleading. To check myself, after we wrapped in the morning (or a few hours before call) I was trying to go to the post house to view the HD masters on a 24" monitor or sneaking into the lab to watch short snippets of printed dailies. On top of that, we had the most bizarre camera problem I've ever encountered. We had about 4 soft shots that were grossly soft, but had no explanation as to why. They were on different lenses, stationary cameras, decent stops, and in the middle of rolls (ie, one entire set-up would be soft, but it would be all 4 takes of that set-up and in the middle of a 1000' roll where everything else was sharp). The focus would seem to drift a little (it would always be behind the actor and you could see their shoulder was sharp, but their face was mush). My focus puller would have to be drunk and I'd have to be asleep to not catch it ? I spoke with the camera house, the lab, Kodak, the telecine house???after exploring every option, nobody could figure out what it is. To be safe, we took our A camera back and carried a 535B for a few days while they checked the Moviecam (and for the record, I'm a 535 convert now ? so quiet and such a bright viewfinder ? a little rough for handheld, but now my camera of choice); they checked everything and could still find nothing, so back to the rental house I went again to swap bodies yet again. I didn't get much sleep this week and the focus issue is still TBD, but it was a very satisfying week of hard work that I believe paid off.

WEEK ONE of Principal Photography Peter, myself, my 2nd AC, our 1st AD, and our Co-Producer went to Barstow two days before the shoot for a day of 2nd Unit shooting. We should have really shot the whole movie up there, but it just wasn't feasible for our budget; Barstow has a real character that I think is impossible to recreate or capture anywhere else. We got a bit of a late start because we had to bring two full camera packages up with us and getting it all packed into the two vehicles was a bit like watching clowns pile into tiny cars. We shot a lot of drive-by stuff once we got up there, mostly from the back of a moving vehicle; I lived on the zoom lens all day to be able to make quick adjustments to things we saw ? we'd done 2 scouts up there already so we knew what we wanted, but we found a lot of great things we'd never planned for. A number of crucial shots were very time dependent, so from around 6pm ? 7pm there was a mad dash to get all of our shots. Peter fell in love with doing high speed for most of these, so I unexpectedly found myself doing handheld shots with an Arri 35-III. We shot some really beautiful magic hour slow-motion stuff of our lead character getting good news; our lead actor (Kevin Sheridan) is wonderfully subtle with his performance, so it was a real treat to see so much about a character conveyed with so little effort. Since I was shooting on 5274 at high speed at magic hour, nearly all of these scenes were shot at a T2/2.8 or wider, and they were done on an 85mm lens, so focus was tricky but "finding" focus is part of the visual vernacular, so we actually made a point of letting many things play soft and then pulling the action into focus. Where I got really thrown on this day was for our night exterior work ? we'd scouted at night about a week before and since I'm shooting 5279 rated at 800 asa, I agreed to shooting drive-bys and such in available light with the understanding that it was a hit-or-miss scenario in terms of what we'd get because there's not a lot of available light up there. Once we got started, Peter asked me to shoot a lot of it at 48fps. There was nothing on the meter in many cases, but I trust him and shooting we went; I was surprised by just how much information showed up! We printed a few of these dailies (since a print is the end-goal, the Producers have allotted a small amount of film to be printed every week) and they looked really fantastic ? even at 800 asa the 5279 still holds up very well. Everything has more saturation than I'd like, but it's not intolerable. Day One was shot entirely on a public bus with available light. I had to re-train myself to start seeing the world very differently- Peter and I talked about everything being done on long lenses and we immediately found ourselves gravitating towards the 85mm as our wide lens and a 135mm as our medium close up lens; we used a 50mm for 2 shots where we just couldn't get the space to use a longer lens, but for the most part I had a few hours of head scratching at rethinking where to place the camera when I'm use to seeing things in terms of 32mm, 40mm, etc. It was a challenge to find interesting ways to block and shoot scenes on a moving bus all day, but I'm very pleased in how we did it. We shot one very important scene as a wide shot from the back of the bus at sunset (doubling for sunrise in the story) that was really beautiful I thought ? the first 2 takes were over-the-top because of the sun blasting down the lens, but the third take with just the burning sky was quite nice. We did one night scene where we just turned on the cheap fluorscenets on the bus and my grips paper taped one side off ? shooting at a T2/2.8 also let me make use of available light through the bus windows and the scene was simple and looked good. Days 2 ? 4 were spent at a High School in Acton; it's essentially a giant open court yard with a circle of glorified portables. On day one we discovered that once you roll a dolly and a crew into many of the classrooms, the flooring was old and poorly done, so there was a constant creaking noise for our dolly moves that was driving all of us a little nuts. The first ½ of day two went slowly for this reason, but we quickly got out of the offending room and moved to another. Peter and I talked a lot during prep about lighting environments and not not specific shots ? partially as an aesthetic approach, but also because of our short schedule and Peter's desire to change things and react in a spontaneous manner. This has lead to a very interesting work approach ? Peter will work out the general blocking with the actors and myself and we'll talk about ways to shoot it; this is important to note because it means we come into every day without a shotlist and are essentially making it up as we go along. We have some very generic ideas, but for the most part it's a little like shooting jazz music ? things come and go and we just roll with it. As our camera positions become more clear, we'll start adding in moves; perhaps we'll dolly across someone's shoulder and make our wide shot and OTS, or maybe we'll pan off of one action and find ourselves in another shot altogether. From that, I'm devising a lighting plan with my Chief Lighting Technician that's first based one where units can go and how many different angles can that one light accommodate. In the case of our main classroom, we placed an 18K HMI Fresnel relatively far away coming low and hard through a window as a direct side-light; closer to the window I put a 6K HMI Par through a 6x6 frame of hi-light to boost the ambient skylight coming through the window. The electric crew swapped out all of the fluorescent units in the ceiling with daylight balanced tubes (each bank took 4 tubes but we only put up 2 in each one of them). At an asa of 500 (800 with an 85B) I was getting a T2.8 from just the fluorescents, from the 18K a T8/11 at the deepest part of the room (where our lead was sitting) and a T16/22 on the extras closest to the window, and a T4/5.6 on the teacher's desk near the window from the ambient light; I used an ND3 all day to shoot at a T2.8 1/3 and keep the general room just a little dim. What was good about this set-up is that we could pound through our 5 ½ pages of dialogue very fast and be able to remain flexible to whatever Peter wanted; I generally hate saying no to my director (As in "No, I can't do that for you.") so as tough as it sometimes is to know I could finesse something to be better with just a few minutes, it's satisfying to be able to see my director so happy every day. Day 3 was spent shooting available light exteriors; we didn't get nearly enough extras (often the case), but with our long lens approach and some clever blocking by the AD department and multiple wardrobe choices from our Costume Designer, you'd never guess our "full" school ground has only a handful of people. We had one very long dolly shot this day (we laid down about 120' of track) but the shot was changed and we ended up only needing about 50'; I always feel bad about having my crew do unnecessary work, but we've been making our days at 12 hours, so it could be worse. Day 4 was a handful of available light day exteriors against a white wall ? I actually liked the overpowering bleakness of the sun pounding down on the white wall (it was late in the day and very frontal lighting) and Peter and I selected compositions and blocking to emphasize this. At lunch we had a company move to shoot our final scene of the movie as a night exterior at a bus station (our lead character leaves town via a greyhound bus) ? there was virtually no available light at all and we had a pre-rigging crew there who did a great job based on our original plan. However, once there Peter threw a shot at me that he really wanted that made the whole lighting plan invalid, so there was a rapid scramble to first re-think the whole approach but also to set it up. We ended up flying a 12x12 ultra-bounce off the 20' roof of the building and bouncing a maxi-brute into it. As single mighty served as a motivation for our key light (in the wideshot it's a hard, bright source shooting down from the roof, but in close-ups I flagged it off of the actors and used a 4x8 beadbaord to bounce it as a very soft side light on them), and a 5K and 2 other mighty's helped pick out architectural elements that I felt would be important. At 800 asa we shot the entire scene at a T2. The other wild card was that we had to shoot a short, but vital, scene on the bus as our lead is driving out of town; our original plan had been to rig a small genny under the bus and use kinos as ambient light and dedo lights to mimic reading lights, but Peter wanted to carry the bus interior as part of the exterior scene as well, so we had to rig the bus in such a way that we couldn't see any lights and we had used up all of our kinos under an awning for the exterior. We went about an hour over schedule this night, which I wasn't thrilled about, but it's not the end of the world. Days 5 and 6 were spent shooting day interiors in a bookstore; because of the location, Day 5 was an overnight and Day 6 was during the day. Day 5 we shot our smaller scenes in hallways and storage rooms; we used a 6K Par through a window with tracing paper to serve as our general ambient light and the one window we saw had an 8x8 Ultrabounce outside with a 4K HMI and a gelled Maxi-Brute blasting into it; I needed to make the window glow as though it was very overexposed outside, but I always think traced windows look fake, plus I wanted to bring some hardlight into the room, so the overexposed frame gave me what I wanted while still allowing me to use a 1200 Par with a narrow lens into the room as a splash of sunlight. Day 6 was a collection of 18K's down to 400 Jokers through all of our windows; we swapped out about 60 8' fluorescenet tubes overhead and I again used an ND 3 to maintain a shooting stop of T2.8/4. We shot one of my favorite scenes today with our lead and Steven Culp (from Desperate Housewives and The West Wing) ? working with really great actors (both Kevin and Steven were really amazing in this scene together) gets me energized and the performances were really stunning ? I think it was some of my most dynamic work in this scene and Peter and I did some exciting blocking with the camera, starting people in wide-shots, bringing them into very dirty OTS's, and then further bringing them into extreme close ups with a lot of energy created in camera. Our approach to everything has been to shoot as much of the scene as possible in one continuous take but to create different shots within each set-up; one shot usually contains 3-5 different types of perspectives, so while we may only shoot a scene with 3 set-ups, we're getting between 9-12 "shots" in each scene. I was a little skeptical of how well this would work, but I recently got to see a rough cut of our classroom scenes and it feels like we had more cameras and time than we actually did. We ended day 6 with a skeleton company move for a sunset scene that ran much longer than expected; by the end of the scene I had pulled out every filter and was barely reading anything on the meter; I could have switched to 5279 and maybe got another take or 2 off, but the jump between 74 and 79 would have been wildly jarring. My crew has been great; Emily Topper (my CLT) has been one of the best creative collaborators I've ever had and I hope I can work with her on everything I do after this ? she challenges me in a non-challenging manner and has a not only a great eye but also a keen sense of when to push for something and when to let the unimportant things slide. Peter is by far one of the best experiences I've had with any director ? there's complete trust and a real sense of us both owning the film we're creating together. While it's not the prettiest work I've done in terms of pure aesthic pleasure (ie, conventionally beautiful photography), it's completely in line with everything we talked about wanting to do and it's fresh and exciting for me because it's work that I've never done before. I may sound like I'm gushing a bit, but I feel like every day I get to fall in love with filmmaking and cinematography all over again. This has been a long posting, so my apologies for being so long winded; we switch into nights next week, so we get almost 2 days off to make that switch. I hope my future postings won't be nearly as rambling and wordy. As soon as I can get permission, I'll try posting some stills from the shoot.

Week Three and Four of Prep Been busy, so weeks 3 and 4 of prep get wrapped into one blog. Nearly all of our locations are locked ? at least the first week is all set. We have 4 different locations in week 1, including an entire day shooting on a bus, 3 days of crowd scenes (and the first movie I've shot where they were paying extras, so when the call sheet says 50 background, there will hopefully be 50 background!), one sizeable night exterior (and the last scene in the movie), and 2 days in a book store, one of which is being shot as an overnight ? the trick there is that all the scenes are day scenes and half the location is made up of large windows. We just barely selected our week 2 location (where 42 of 101 pages takes place) ? I've only been able to spend a collective 2 hours there and only about an hour of that was a tech scout with my Dept. Heads ? it's difficult to properly prep with so little time. Obviously we can shoot there, but when you have limited money and limited schedule, your best and most valuable resource is time; time to plan, time to prepare, time to anticipate problems BEFORE they become problems and either head them off or come up with alternate plans. The less prepared you are, the more reactionary you become to situations. It makes me nervous because we have to average about 7 pages a day (and it's 7 pages of dialogue) ? nearly every scene in this film has some major dramatic element going on, so there are few "simple" scenes. It's very odd to me that I've been on the production for four weeks of prep, but virtually nothing was done in weeks one and two because there were no locations, the director was doing a lot of casting, etc. I felt weird about spending so much time re-reading the script on my own and doing my own prep stuff, waiting to start working with other people, then the final week or so of prep became a mad dash of throwing things together. We ended up pulling our camera equipment from Hollywood Camera ? I can't say enough good things about their customer service. Not only did they really work with our budget, they also made a point of working with me as to make sure I had the tools I wanted and needed. I pretty much have everything I asked for ? I mentioned in passing a few slow-motion shots the director was thinking about and they threw in an Arri III as a high speed/B-Camera for the run of the show. We're shooting with a Moviecam Compact, which I'm happy with because I like it for handheld and it's quiet enough that even in the most intimate scenes there won't be an issue for sound ? the viewfinder isn't quite as bright as I'd like, and I'm already missing the behind-the-lens filtration that only Panavision cameras have, but all in all I'm happy. We're using a variety of Zeiss Superspeeds (from 18mm to 180mm), a 200mm Nikor (for some reason they've thrown this lens in for us, but I suspect I'll never use it), and an Angenieux 25-250 HP. Cinelease is providing our G&E package at a great deal ? our HMI package (which we'll only carry for week one) consists of an 18K, a 6K, and an assortment of smaller units; our Tungsten goes from Maxi-Brutes and 10K's down. I've made a point of not having kino flos on the truck (though my gaffer and I decided to have a couple just in case) ? my last show was all kino and it drove me nuts ? I just never like the way they look unless I go to great efforts to alter their quality; I did a romantic comedy a few years ago that used the Image 80 on nearly every shot, but it was always through a 4x4 of muslin and another frame of diffusion after that, so I figure why bother using a kino at all at that point. I'll admit that since I usually use kino-flos for their speed and ease of use, a part of me wants to avoid them just to push myself into trying something new. I'm very excited about Post Logic being our telecine house ? my favorite colorist is there and they've always done great work for me. Peter Paige (my director) is really fantastic ? I suspect this will be one of my best collaborations I've ever had. He's got a wealth of creative ideas and isn't afraid of being bold with his choices ? we've specifically talked about avoiding standard coverage. After weeks of discussions and watching films and talking abojut the film, I put together an on-line "look-book"; the link is web.mac.com/jaycro. I also put together a visual treatment for the film (a rule book so to speak for myself) ? if I can figure out how to post that as well I will. I'm excited to shoot something that's about finding beauty in unconventional ways ? about letting things not be perfect or "right"; Peter wants to play with focus a great deal as well as keeping the camera constantly moving ? not in terms of camera movement, but when there are locked-off shots to keep the camera floating so there's a constant tension. There's already a solid short hand between us and I feel a great deal of trust. I shot some stock tests ? this has been a headache for me. The look of the film calls for a soft, low-contrast, desaturated look. I'd originally been wanting to shoot 5229 or even 5277 ? what I got instead was 5279 for all of my day & night interiors and night exteriors and 5274 for my day exteriors; those are both considerably higher contrast and more saturated. This is one of those curses of low budget features working very hard to maintain shooting on film ? you have to make deals for things you don't want or can't really use. Kodak bent over backwards to give us a great deal (they've always been really good to me), but I feel like the producer should have pushed harder for what we wanted and, to make the movie we want to make, needed. Be that as it may, I've shot two rounds of tests to understand these stocks. I found 5274 is pretty unforgiving in underexposure ? at 2 stops under it's still quite good, but at 2 ½ under it falls off rapidly; that ½ stop makes a major difference. 5279 is a contrasty stock when compared to the 5218 everyone shoots now ? it's surprising, actually, how contrasty it looks after having not shot it for a while now. Peter really responded to the 5274 underexposed one stop and printed back up ? it knocked back quite a bit of saturation and really eliminated a lot of the deep blacks that we're trying to avoid. Since it's my day stock (and I can't use too many ND filters or I'll never be able to see through the lens) I don't think I'll be able to rate it at 400, but it gave me some ideas. The first round of tests also involved filter tests; coral filters were too heavy for everyone's taste, but an 81EF seemed just right for the day exteriors ? I'll create the feeling of warmth for everything else via gels and art direction; I don't want the effect of the warmth to get lost by an audience getting use to it. Peter and I also agreed we didn't like any of the diffuision; I usually don't use diffision at all, but it's especially wrong for this film. I actually really liked how the 1/2 Black Diffusion/FX looked and we'll carry a few grades of that just in case. My second round of tests was designed to figure out how to destroy the stock into something else ? I shot 5279 rated everywhere from 200 asa up to 1600 asa and had it printed up or down accordingly. What I found was that 800 asa (underexposing by 2/3 of a stop and printing up) added some grain and a little milkiness to the blacks that was quite nice for our story. 5274 is going to be rated at 250 asa, which isn't much, but I just can't afford to lose any more visibility in the viewfinder. I'm excited to get started.

So I just finished my first 35mm feature; it was my 8th feature (everything else has been 16 or HD). I'd INTENDED to keep a weekly journal during prep and production, but we had an odd overnight schedule that threw a wrench in that plan, so instead I was sporadically jotting things down and then filling in the holes during my days off. Even though we wrapped, I thought they might be of interest, so here they all are. WEEK ONE OF PREP So it's all official - the first week of prep is behind me and three weeks from now I start principal photography on "Leaving Barstow". The production decided to add another week of prep to the shoot (I find some humor in the fact that the prep is longer than the show). This is my first 35mm feature; it's a small, quiet character-driven story - very dialogue heavy and entirely performance based, but the director has an extremely strong and distinct visual tone in mind. We're shooting 106 pages in 18 days, so it'll be a fast shoot. It's very low budget (under 500K as I understand it) - I don't believe we should be shooting on 35mm given the budget, but we're obligated to because of a contractual agreement (at least that's my understanding). The past week was spent getting up to speed with the production; some meetings with the director to talk about his ideas and the story, producer meetings about budgets for all the departments, some crew interviews, etc. This coming week will involve selecting vendors (camera, G&E, lab, stock, etc) and booking the crew; I'll also be spending time with the Production Designer and hopefully we'll squeeze in some location scouts. I thought I might share a few things that are making prep much easier for me; hopefully someone will find these of use. If you don't own EP Scheduler, do yourself a favor and buy it now. It's the newer version of Movie Magic Scheduler. Every AD uses this program to schedule and prep a show, but it holds enormous power for Cinematographers (and most folks I suppose) as well. It's pricey but I think very much worth it. After the 1st AD breaks down the show, I ask them to send me the files. Every scene has its own breakdown sheet that details EVERY single element from EVERY department that's involved in that scene; it also notes day/night, int/ext, the page count, a brief scene description, etc. I can take the 1st AD's breakdown and reorganize the categories to suit my needs - I create categories for special equipment (by department), additional day-players (also by department), story notes, technical notes, what film stock I'll use, lab & post notes, aesthetic approaches, etc. When I'm done, I have an EXTREMELY detailed breakdown of every scene in the movie. Not only do I now have a solid plan for how to approach the film, but I can also clearly communicate with the UPM all of my needs in advance (ie- I need a condor for the following days, I have this many additonal man-days, I need to rent an 18K on the following 3 days only, etc). As the schedule changes, you can update it with a few simple clicks and in turn be able to alter your reservations for additional equipment/crew. This can help save the production quite a bit of money, it puts you in good standing with the UPM, and your crew is always aware of what's going on (you can save everything as a PDF and send it off to your department heads). It's very valuable - I can't say enough about it. Information is the greatest power you can have on (and off) a set. You can go to entertainmentpartners.com and download a free demo version ? you can only open it 20 times before it locks up, but at least you can try it before you buy it. Sunpath is another amazing piece of software, and for only $99 it's a steal. The compass clinometer is a bit pricier (I suggest the Suunto Combo - it's a little pricey, but it's a long term investment and it pays for itself very fast). With the software and the compass, you can accurately plan your days around the position of the sun. You can tell where the sun will be (and I mean EXACTLY where it will be) and when exactly it'll be there; you can chart the sun's position in 15 minute increments by both Altitude (the sun's height) and Azimuth (the sun's horizontal position) This can be done on tech scouts, so weeks (or months) in advance you can plan your shooting days - you'll know when the sun is going to come through a window at your day interior location, you'll know the trajectory of its movement, and you'll know how long it'll be shining across that back wall before it moves on. For day exteriors this is invaluable, and for day interiors it can be wildly useful too. I used it on my last show to save about 4 hours of intensive rigging (not to mention about $1500). Check out their website ? www.wide-screen.com. You can also find the software and different compasses at http://filmtools.com/comandin.html. Google Earth is also very useful - if you don't have this program, go to google.com and download it; it's FREE! It's surprisingly accurate. Since it provides a very detailed overhead view of pretty much anywhere in the world, it's very useful for planning large night exteriors (where lighting units will go, genny placement, etc). In general it's very useful to help you work with production on parking (to avoid trucks appearing in your day exterior shots or through windows in your interiors). For driving scenes it can also be useful to determine the best routes to go. Since you can add notes to any spot on the map, you can also make detailed location notes based on scouts. It's also helpful for those of us who get lost easily on our way to set in the morning. WEEK TWO OF PREP And another one bites the dust..........well, another week anyways. Two weeks down and two weeks to go until we start shooting. The great news that came out of last week is that I hired my Key Grip and Chief Lighting Technician. Both are new people for me that I've never worked with before, but they're both wildy experienced and I feel I'm in great hands with them. I was starting to sweat a little about finding crew (there were some political issues to deal with and then a number of people were already booked on other things), so it's reassuring to know that my crew is really solid and all set. I'm a bit concerned this week that we don't have more locations to consider; we only went on our first scout last Friday and of the three places we saw, one was fantastic, one was pretty good, and the other left a lot to be desired. Since we're getting closer to the shoot date and there are still so many matters to be addressed, I'm feeling that vibe that sometimes happens where people are willing to sign off on a location even if it isn't right - they just want a place, any place, to shoot. Barring aesthetic and story matters (which should fundamentally be the primary factors in my opinion), there are logistical concerns to address as well - one location that I fear I'll be forced to shoot in is going to be expensive from a rigging stance, and even after that it'll be limiting in what we can do lighting-wise. The problem isn't our location manager (who's really great given how little he has to work with), it's more the issue of how expensive locations in LA are. I still find great humor in how DIFFICULT it is to make a movie in the movie capital of the world........ Still no word on who will be providing cameras - bidding is still going on and there's a back and forth about camera bodies; I'm asking for a small, light weight camera because we'll likely have mostly small locations and lots of hand held - all of the rental houses keep pushing a BL4 for budget purposes. I got the official word that our lab work is all being done by Deluxe; they've done all of my 35mm work for the past three years, and I've got a great relationship with them, so I'm very happy to be working with them again. Since we're contractually obligated to deliver a 35mm print, the Producers have agreed to print a small amount of dailies every week - only a few thousand feet over the course of the whole shoot (the rest of the dailies will be viewed via DVD); I'm very grateful that I'll be able to see some film dailies through-out the shoot - it's so important to really know what's being shot every day and film dailies are the only real way to fully understand what's happening with your negative. I'm lucky that the Producer who set things up at Deluxe understands (and agrees with) the importance of seeing some film dailies. I'll likely shoot my lens and stock tests next week. I'm hoping to shoot Kodak's 5229 for the entire show, but we're waiting to hear what Fuji's offer will be. 5229 is Kodak's lowest contrast 500T stock available - they don't have enough 5277 (a discontinued 320T low con stock) for us and my inquiry about getting 5263 (a short-lived 500T VERY low con stock) was quickly shot down (I thought it looked great in "Elephant" and "Lost in Translation"). Either way, there are budget issues arising over some extra lab work I want to do - I'd like to do a one stop push for everything, but at an extra $.05/foot X 100,000 feet...........$5K is a big chunk of money on our budget. I'm also trying to cut some costs within my departments to make money for another member of the G&E department - we'll see if that works out or not. I'm finishing up my breakdown of the show - my "look-book" is completed and the director really loved everything I brought to him. There are around 100 images I compiled, coupled with a 5 page outline of the visual "rules" for the film; I've found it useful to have clear visual references early on in prep to serve as common terminology for everyone - it's also wildly useful to me during the shoot to flip through it every night and try to keep everything fresh and straight in my head. Got the word they hired the AD department and they're all people I've worked with; I've done 3 features with the 1st AD, so I'm happy to hear we'll be working together again. All in all this week felt a little stagnant - there's still so much to do, but everyone is at a bit of a stand-still until a few key pieces fall into place. Next week we'll scout and lock all of our locations and we'll have our first production meeting with all of the department heads.

Congratulations Eric - such a fantastic experience and from all of your hard work, well deserved.

There are no secrets to anything; the "trick" you use is very likely used by a hundred other people who either learned it from someone else or figured out some incarnation of it on their own. I can give someone an overhead diagram of my lighting set-ups with detailed notes about the placement of lighting units, measurements of footcandles, lens height, focal length, shooting stop, etc, and what that person shoots versus what I'll shoot will be two different things. We all use the same tools - it's the application (and in turn taste) that makes our work individual. I'll tell anyone anything they want to ask; I also, however, tend to ramble a bit.

I graduated from AFI about 2 years ago; I'm 28 and I'm about to start shooting my 8th feature. While I will never claim to be living a life of any sort of financial security or prosperity(at least for now), I can say that I am a Cinematographer. Period. I don't grip or juice to pay the bills and look for shooting opportunities where I can (not that there is anything wrong with that) - I only shoot and that's how I make my living. How much AFI played a part in that is very hazy at best - about a year ago I sat down and tried making a chart of sorts to figure out where opportunities had come from over the years; it became a tangled mess that resembled the worst of TV soap operas. =) AFI certinaly didn't hurt - I had the opportunity (was strongly encouraged even) to do things I'd never normally think of doing in an effort to learn and grow as a storyteller. I learned a great deal about how to manage a career, set management, and set politics (three skills that are vastly overlooked I think). More than anything, for me at least, AFI was a place where I discovered who I was as a filmmaker in terms of my aesthetic tastes, what type of career I wanted, and how I wanted to build my career and life in this industry. The teachers and instructors at AFI are fantastic - top notch and they have a lifetime of experience they bring with them. They aren't, however, going to help you get work. I worked as the TA for the head of the Cinematography Dept. and after graduation he put my name out for a few things he heard about, but there isn't any anything like a career placement program. It's a real mixed bag and the cliche is true - you get out of it what you put in. There are two other people from my class that work pretty regularly as DP's, a few people who don't do much of anything, and a lot of people who work as AC's, Gaffers, etc to pay the bills and shoot what they can when the opportunities come around. My first feature out of AFI was with a bunch of other AFI people - that feature directly helped me get one about a year later. The feature I'm about to start shooting is my first 35mm feature and was a direct result of an AFI connection I made three years ago. All of my other features had nothing to do with any AFI people. AFI shouldn't be seen as a film school - they presume you know a lot of the basics and are coming in with both professional experience and the drive to actually be a DP. If this is what you know you're doing, AFI would be a good place to look at. If you're unsure or still trying to figure out what you want to do, I'd pass and save your money. Frankly speaking, the tuition has been steadily increasing and I'd be asking hard questions about how that money is being spent and what you can expect for such a big investment. If you're in the LA area, feel free to contact me if you'd like and I'd be happy to try to meet up for some coffee whenever my schedule allows it. You should also call AFI and arrange a tour - make sure to ask about sitting in on some of the Cinematography classes.

Amish! Welcome the site sir!

Please pardon me if this posting seems like a frustrated rant, but I think it may be useful for some of the newer members to this industry to keep this in mind for the future. I've had three different occasions this year where people either lied or were highly mis-leading about thier experience and capabilities. I was only bit by it once earlier in the year (a short film I did for a friend with an "AC", and I use that term loosely); the past two occurrences were during the interview process. The fact of the matter is that you'll get caught - if you're lucky you'll be found out during an interview and before you're hired; at that point you'll probably be black-balled by those people. If you're really unlucky, you'll get the job and then hurt the production. I can tell you with in no uncertain terms that the "AC" I worked with earlier in the year will never work with me again, nor anyone else that I work with. This AC may eventually go on to become the greatest AC the world will ever know, but they lied to me before the job and then greatly impacted the shoot with their inexperience. I accept a part of that blame for not catching it before we got to the actual shoot, but fundamentally the burden of being honest falls upon the person applying for the job. Padding your resume or lying about what you have (or haven't) done will not help you; you might get away with it for a few gigs here and there, but people talk and it's a shockingly small world. When you are found out, it won't be pretty. More importantly, you're potentially (likely) going to hurt a production - you'll cost someone time, money, or hurt the quality of work. It's not worth it. So don't do it. One final note - it's fine to apply for a 1st AC position if you're a 2nd AC, so long as you're clear that your experience has primarily been as a 2nd and you're looking to move up (it's not fine to be a 2nd and apply under the guise that most of those 2nd jobs were 1sting jobs). Likewise, if you're a Best Boy applying for a Gaffer position, just make sure you're clear about your experience (and in my opinion, being unclear is very close to lying).

Check the archives too - there have been a number of discussions about AFI over the years. If you don't find the info you're looking for there, feel free to shoot me an email (I graduated 2 years ago).

Congratulations Cole! This is great news - keep us updated as often as you can. Some advice I can offer about shooting your first feature is to wear very comfortable shoes (I always wear Cole Haan - pricey, but even after 14 hours it still feels like I'm not wearing any shoes at all), don't overlook your health (it's virtually impossible to be sick on set and still be on top of of your game), and remember to enjoy the whole experience - your first feature only happens once, so savor it.

Alessandro, if you believe those compositions put the artist's mouth too low in the frame or are otherwise "wrong", I'm curious if you could post examples of your own work that show what you feel would be more appropriate. This isn't a jab at you, it's a genuine curiosity on my behalf because I think the framing looks perfectly fine.

If you need to do telecine in Chicago as well I was always very happy with Optimus. It's been about 5 years since I was there, but might be worth a look.

Check the archives- this has been discussed before and you can find a lot of answers to your questions. Of course, if you still have questions after you've read the archives, feel free to ask away and we're all happy to help!

I've never used the Canon primes, only the Cine-Style zooms. I thought the zooms looked quite good even wide open - it's a matter of relativity though; they look good, but when you compare them to an identical shot done on the digi-primes, they look softer in comparison. I've done three features exclusively with the zooms and I've always been happy with them. And those are my 2 cents.

I think another big question to ask is HOW the film was being shown - what type of projector was it, how maintained was the theatre and screen, the size of the theatre (specifically the distance between the projector and the screen), etc. I just had a short screen at a festival last week with the cheapest projector the festival could rent - every film screening there was dark and out of focus; my film was very dark to begin with, so you can imagine my surprise........ If you're not viewing a film in a proper environment, it's tough to really guage the work. Try watching your own demo reel on, say, the television at your parent's home; I'll hazard a guess that it'll be a very different viewing experience (unless your parents happen to be DIT's.........). Having said that - if a film is photographed poorly, then it's still a poorly photographed film, regardless of format.

The Elaine is a touchy camera; echoing what Kevin said, you really need a camera crew on top of their game. Even with a great camera crew, you'll still blow through fuses faster than you'd expect and run into troubles here and there. It's a roll of the dice I think; I've used the Elaine three times now and run the gamut from a fine experience to a nightmare - each time was with the same 1st AC too. The bigger issue is the rest of the package; depending on what else is going on at the time, you could get a lot of great support or you could find yourself with a package that leaves a lot to be desired. The last time I went out, I had 5 primes (2 of which were a bit off of their focus markings, but they were the only lenses really available) and a standard 16mm zoom that couldn't be used wider than a 50mm. The time before that I had a set of 8 primes, a zoom, on-board monitor, viewfinder, etc. It really depends. An O'Connor 2575 and a Gear Head are standard support; at least they were for me. I think it's fine for handheld, but I'm also 6'4", so my opinion of a big camera is a little different than everyone elses. =)

Technically speaking, there's little question here - the Pro-35 looks great for broadcast, but when blown up to 35 the resolution is gone; it appears soft and muddy. I shot comparison tests about 2 years ago for a feature that was in a similar situation; the director had used the Pro-35 quite a bit, but we were contractually bound to deliver a 35mm film-out. After the tests were screened there was never again a discussion of the Pro-35. If it's a video market only, you're fine. Otherwise, look at the digi-primes and digi-zoom (if you can afford them). I also like the Canon Cine-Style zooms; I find them to have very little breathing and they remain sharp even with a blow-up (though, as to be expected, not nearly as nice looking as the digi-primes). This is all from a technical stance - you may find you like the look of the Pro-35 blown up...........I couldn't imagine that for an entire feature, but who knows? =)

Welcome to the forum Adam! Happy to see you around here. I love the reel - I'm a fan of the flickering effect at the start of your reel. I dare say you could cut the first shot and start with the OTS of the girl waiting for the train. The concert film at the end seems to be the strongest material IMO (is that from your thesis?); it's dynamic and strongly executed from what's clearly a strong concept. There are a few elements that throw me a bit because they seem a bit out of place - the slow-motion CU of the man running down the hall feels like an effect done in post (a digital slow-motion effect rather than in camera) and (in my opinion) lacks the authenticity of the rest of your reel. There's also a flash frame in there before a night exterior that feels strange to me. Don't misunderstand me - the photography is strong through-out, it's more a comment on the structure of the reel; it's a nit-picky thing really and based solely on taste. Inspiring stuff and fun to watch. Can't wait to see more.

AFI sends those financial aid packages to everyone who made the last round of interviews, but it doesn't neccessarily mean everyone who gets one is accepted; since the financial aid process is long and complicated, they want people thinking about it early. Typically, they don't notify people about their acceptance into the program until early-to-mid April, so I'd suggest you not be running to the mailbox every day waiting for a letter - still a few weeks off. Also keep in mind that they have an alternate list - if someone decides not to attend, AFI has a list of alternates who get a call at the last minute to come join the program; it's rare, but it happens. The waiting is the worst part, but try not to dwell on it. Best of luck to everyone.

There's also a commentary track with John Toll, ASC on the DVD.

I like working with Randy Anderson - very good humored and has a good eye - he's also very determined to get it right, so he was willing to spend whatever time was needed to achieve what we were after.

A number of DP's take interns, but it's always a very different scenario. I interned with Tom Priestly, ASC - we had very limited interaction though; I spent a great deal of time with the camera crew and the G&E crew, I took EXTENSIVE camera and lighting notes/plots, and in general did very little hands-on work and a lot of observing. A friend of mine interned with Janusz Kaminski, ASC on "Munich" and was very much interacting with him on a daily basis (he was even allowed to do a bit of C camera operating, but I think that's common with Mr. Kaminski since another friend of mine interned on an earlier film with him and had a similar experience of being allowed to operate a few C camera shots). Another friend interned with Steven Postert, ASC on his most recent film and mostly worked hands-on with the camera crew, but still found the opportunity to view dailies with Mr. Poster and such. In all cases, these were internships done via schools - not being a student will probably shut down any chance you have.

Welcome to the forum Ric!