Jayson Crothers

I've used the Pro-35 many times, so here are my observations. You can't shoot above a T4; actually, you can, but if you read the instructions, it specifically states not to because it'll bring the groundglass into focus (hence all the grainy noise you see at a T4 and above). I personally think even T4 is cutting it close; I avoid going over a 2.8. You lose 1 2/3 - 2 Stops; there's this variation because I've found different F900's with different Pro-35 combinations to have a slight variance. In general you can say 2 stops, but as always, test, test, test. It does look like a light diffusion filter, which by it's very definition means you are losing some resolution. To my eye it seems obvious when compared to, say, a Digi-Prime; I had the opportunity to see 35mm film-outs of tests I shot with the F900 using a Pro-35, an F900 with Digi-Primes, and a Varicam with the same combo - the resolution loss was immediately apparent to everyone in the room. The Pro-35 has inherent aberrations and it magnifies the aberrations in the taking lens; that's why standard Zeiss lenses can't typically be used but the superspeeds seem fine. Zooms are also a tricky thing - I've yet to find one that didn't have some vignetting somewhere in the frame (though I found a Cooke 10-1 at Clairmont that only had a little, but that was as good as I've seen thus far). The Pro-35 should really only be used if you are looking for an extremely shallow focus look - there's the misconception that it's just like 35mm, which it is if you're shooting 35mm between T1.3 and T2.8. In 35mm, you can shoot at deeper stops, but not with the Pro-35. I typically work at a T2/2.8, so it suits my normal working style, but it's not the right tool all the time. Furthermore, keep in mind that you're now working at an asa of around 80-125 (depending on your camera settings of course); suddenly you need a 2K instead of a tweenie, a 5K instead of a 2K - it's havoc on night exteriors and you lose many of the benefits HD provides for dark scenes or night exteriors. I like the Pro-35 just as I like Digi-Primes, Canon Cine-Style HD Zooms, etc- like all things, it's one more tool and has a place on certain productions with certain needs.

I'm starting a new show soon and am starting a new relationship with an AD. When we first met, we both took some time (away from the Director, Producer, etc - just the two of us over some coffee) to talk about how we both like to work, our requests and expectations of the other person, our experiences (good and bad) from past shoots, etc. I find this is a good way to be honest and clear about what everyone should expect. I tend to be extremely organized before I walk on the set, to the point that I own EP Scheduler and ask the AD to send me his/her schedule so I can get very familiar with the whole shooting schedule. You have to always be thinking ahead so you can tell the AD what the first shot is, as well as the next few shots ("after this Medium Shot, we'll turn around and be looking down the hall for a wide shot, then on to the shot through the front window...." - this lets the AD know how to prioritize what needs to be done for the rest of the departments). It's important to be accurate about your time estimates - going over is an obvious one, but if you come in too early, you can also screw up an AD - if you tell him 30 minutes, he/she may send off the actor for touch ups and such, and 10 minutes later you announce you're ready; now that AD has to scramble to bring that actor back and the set is waiting on him/her. I work a lot with a great AD who has 15+ years of experience on every type of show - if I'm running early or late, I'll give him a heads up and we can make adjustments as need be. If he runs into an issue, he'll tell me and I can adjust my work to help him out. At lunch we'll review the advance schedule for the next day, and after wrap (and before dailies) he and I will do a final run through of the next day's work. After 3 features and a handful of shorts with him that have ALL come in ahead of schedule, I think open and honest communication, as well as a mutual respect for each other and the work you're each doing, are the keys to a good AD/DP relationship. For those few AD's who scream and are always hovering to remind me of how long I have or don't have, I gently remind them that if they're hovering over me, that must mean every other department must be waiting on me as well, and unless those other departments are literally standing there, equipment in hand, ready to work, perhaps the AD's energy could be better spent getting everyone else ready. If that fails, I pull out my meter, hand it to them and say "If you can do it faster, by all means be my guest. Otherwise, please let me do my job."

I've shot 7 features now and in all cases the interviews were never remotely the same. David hit it right on the head; you're both interviewing each other (though you never want it to appear that you're also interviewing them). I think it's best to be cautious about answering "How would you shoot this?" type questions without getting a lot of information first - you could be rambling on about how you think it would be great to shoot it all handheld with multiple cameras and a heavily desaturated look.......only to then have the director tell you he/she likes elegant dolly's with one camera and lots of vibrant colors; you just shot yourself in the foot. Listen - that sounds like obvious advice, but really listen to everything the director is saying. From there, ask questions - what kinds of films have they made in the past, what was their experience like making those, what types of films do they like/inspire them in general, what are they looking for in a Cinematographer (that's a good one to ask because then you know if you can fill that role or not). When asked about specifics, I get vague but optimisitc - ..."the speed of a shoot is determined by so many things that it's too early to say for sure, but I can say that I pride myself on running an efficient set and am always pushing to get more coverage and more shots...". Or something to that effect. You're telling them things they want to hear, but not committing to anything specific ("In our interview you said you could do 40 set-ups a day! Why can't you shoot faster?") Whenever possible, you want to read the script at least twice before the interview - knowing character names and asking story specific questions ("I thought that such-and-such relationship was interesting; how do you see their dynamics as a couple?") are big winners - it shows that you're already invested. Some interviews have been only about my work; my last feature interview (one that I just wrapped 2 weeks ago) was an hour of talking about different films that were on my reel - the director barely said anything about his film until about the last 5 minutes. I was pretty certain the interview went poorly for me because he didn't seem like talking about his film, just asking me a lot of questions - the producer called me an hour later to offer me the job. Go figure. Other interviews have practially nothing to do with the movie; I shot a feature last June and the interview was a three hour conversation about music, relationships, foreign politics, and comparing all the coffee we were drinking. We never once talked about the movie until the second interview - that was very much about the look of the movie and he offered me the job after about 45 minutes. One final note - don't turn down a job because the director seems like a bad person or the script sucks. What I mean is, don't TELL them that's why you're doing it; they may not always be doing this level of work and you don't want to burn bridges that you don't have to. "I don't like the script." "I don't think we'd work well together." "I don't think you want to shoot it the right way" "I'd love to shoot it, but my schedule has a conflict. Damn. But hopefully we'll have an opportunity to work together on your next production?" Which one of those sounds better to you?

I'm a big fan of Supersliders, partially because I think they're well made, but also because of the support from the owner (Tom Slocum - very friendly and knowledgeable). I don't know if he sells them or only rents them, but you could try him at 310.387.5875 (cell). He has sliders in the following lengths: 28" 32" 36" 48" 60" 72" 96" 166" (this is used for remote/motion control)

I just wrapped a 30 day feature shooting on the F900/3 - we had a Sony 14" CRT, a Panasonic 17? HD LCD, and a 6" Astro Onboard Monitor. The 6" Astro is great because it has a waveform overlay function - it's a real time saver to be at the camera and hit a button to double check things versus always running back and forth to video village. I personally didn't care for the 17" LCD monitor - I found it to be misleading through-out the entire shoot. You have to be sitting DIRECTLY in front of it (not standing in front of it, but sitting directly in front of it, square on) to accurately see it. I also found that it always appeared to be just a little brighter - no matter what we did, it always seemed just a bit brighter (the director always commented that it looked "more cheereful", for whatever that's worth). The built in waveform was a nice addition, but it's small and useful only for a basic idea of your levels - a dedicated waveform is much more ideal. One major advantage is it's size and weight - it's essentially the same as a flatscreen computer monitor of the same size (if your production has to move a lot, it's far more appealing than a CRT of a comparable size). The 14" CRT was, as to be expected, "picture-perfect" - what you see is what you get. It's size makes it suited for a production where you're not moving around too much (or if you are, you should have a dedicated monitor cart). Comparing the 2 monitors side-by-side (one was for me, one was for scripty and EP's), I decided to stick with CRT for as long as I'm able to. I also did a short about 3 months ago with 2 HVX200's hooked up to 2 17" Panasonic LCD's - dailies were screened on a 20" CRT; dailies always looked a bit darker than they did on set. My 2 cents.

A flashlight and laserpointer are good starts, but that mostly teaches you how to repeat a similar action; the catch to a geared head is to react to movement and to do so smoothly. I learned how to operate by sitting in a rental house with a camera body and a long lens and following people around as they went about their day; if you call up Panavision or another large camera house and explain yourself, they'll probably be rather accomodating if they aren't too busy. I also suggest learning on a longer lens in a lower gear at first; the lower gear is much more refined and allows for more subtle adjustments. Once you get up to 3rd gear, it's basically just a few spins of the wheel to do a 360, so it's more suited to fast action. Also make sure the camera is properly balanced; if it's off balance at all, you'll be using the wheels to fight against the weight and it makes operating smoothly rather awkward. More than anything, it just takes a lot of practice and then you finally have to take the plunge and just take it out onto set. Those first few shots on your first day with it will be a bit rough, but practice will make perfect.

Hey Gang. So I'm about to start shooting my 7th feature and I'm sitting here without a Gaffer/Chief Lighting Technician (for those who prefer one title over the other). My past 6 features have all been out of town, and this is my first in LA (ironic since I've lived in LA for over 3 years now). My first and second pick aren't available, and rather than call up some old film school pals to come work with me, I'm interested in meeting some other young Gaffers who are primarily interested in Gaffing (rather than a DP who's only Gaffing for the time being). It's a HD thriller, extremely low budget, and a wickedly short shooting schedule; it's the smallest feature I've done yet, but I love the location and believe it's got a good chance of being a fun and creepy movie (read: my rate was slashed down as well, so we're all in it together). I'm happy to give a good gaffer part of my pay to compensate for the lack of budget. If anyone knows or works with any younger gaffers (I'm only 27, so obviously no offense is meant by saying "younger") who have some experience and are looking to meet a new Cinematographer to build a relationship with, please shoot me an email at jaysoncrothers@hotmail.com. Thanks everyone.

I just wrapped a 30 day feature with a cast of primarily 14 and 15 year olds and a dog; we were shooting on the F900. The director hated things blowing out, and had the nasty habit of picking locations where the only place to block our cast of 9-12 kids was in front of a giant window. On day 2 we had a key scene to shoot in a coffee shop; the room was about 10 feet wide, 18 feet long, and had a window that was 10 feet wide and 8 feet high; 8 of our kids were seated in front of it for a 1 5/8 page dialogue scene. The exterior was unusually sunny and read at a T45, so I had to light the interior to a T22/32 split before the director was happy.......... After pointing a 6K HMI, a 4K HMI, and a 2.5K HMI directly at talent (and squezzinng in just a wee bit of grippage to do SOMETHING with it), the director said "Looks great!" I don't know what part of the lighting was a greater challenge; getting a T22/32 for a tiny interior or not shooting myself in the head and hoping to take out the director in the process. =) In general, lighting for exposure rather than for creative reasons is always the biggest challenge for me - when I'm working to get a stop based on technical reasons and not because I have an artistic intent.

I did my undergraduate studies there and felt it was, and still is, an amazing film school. There is a massive amount of equipment; the advantage to this is that you'll practically always have access to equipment for your shoots. For Cinematography, there are practically more classes than you'll probably be able to take - lighting I, II, II, Special Studies I, II, Camera Seminar I, II, Lab Sciences, Telecine, VFX, etc. You get access to many different aspects of Cinematography, and you're constantly surrounded by students and teachers, so it becomes a way of life in a manner of speaking. There's also the mere fact that with SO many students in the film program, you'll never have any difficulty finding sets to work on; I left with Columbia having shot 50+ shorts of varying sizes and I worked as crew on at least as many - mind you, I finished my undergrad degree at Columbia, so I was only there for about 2 years. The disadvantage to Columbia (and mind you, it's been a few years, so this may have changed) - they are a VERY technical school, but there is little attention paid to WHY you do something. What I mean is, you'll walk out knowing the ins and outs of how a silver retention process works, but nobody will ever ask you WHY you want to do it. I found that this lead to a lot of short films that looked "cool" and were very well shot, but they generally all had a similar look and feel. Additionally, nobody teaches management to the Cinematography students, so the importance of Scheduling, Budget, Equipment Orders (outside of school when every item is costing someone money), Set Ettiquette, etc. is never touched upon except by happenstance. I think Chicago is a fantastic city, and Columbia is an amazing place to learn. If you go, say hello to Ninoos Bethishou for me!

"I've heard stories of such incessant "suggestion makers" and "question askers" that the crew had to make significant effort to deflect them from Directors and DP's...don't be that guy! nobody likes that guy! I can tell that you didn't go anywhre near that extent, but there is a fine line there that shouldn't be crossed." I photographed a feature out of town about a year ago and the VFX department had a 20 year old intern who fancied himself a cameraman; on a daily basis I'd be at the monitor checking something and he'd pipe in with an opinion about something looking too dark, too bright, etc. I was polite and went to his dept. head first and asked that this intern get an explanation about how this was out of line. When the intern continued to do it, I finally had to pull him aside and tell him he needed to keep his mouth shut because his opinions weren't wanted. I wasn't being rude, nor was I trying to be a d*ck - an intern sitting at the monitor discussing his opinions of the images (often with the director there, screenwriter, an EP, etc) is unacceptable and he would have known that if he'd paid a bit more attention to his surroundings and talked less (it was his first non-student film experience). I work entirely in the indie world, and while you'll always find those arrogant wankers who like to pose as being bigger than they really are, in general I always find that people are VERY happy to talk and share..........when it's appropriate. Before call, lunch, or during a long set-up where it's obvious that certain people are standing around killing time. On the whole, don't take it personally if you feel you got blown off - the DP usually has 20 different things going on in his/her mind at any one point.

Eric~ Thanks for the great info; I'm prepping a feature right now and was looking at carrying the 6-24 digizoom and then the 40mm and 70mm as well. Did you have any issues with matching the zoom to the primes; any thoughts about the combination at all for that matter? Thanks!

Welcome Jessica. Or is it welcome back? Or is it good to see you around......... At any rate, hoping to see you post here more often.

I'm still around too.......been gone for two weeks and look at all the fun I've missed........

I just saw it today here in LA (a shame that it's not in more theatres). I saw it at the Laemmle 5 on Sunset; it's not the best projection (which was a tad disappointing), but it wasn't too bad (a bit dark at the corners). Great work David; I came home and went through the archives and want to say thanks again - VERY helpful and informative to watch the film and then be able to read along and follow how everything was done. I thought the two worlds you created (the "home: life versus the "work" life) really made the charcters come alive in terms of seeing their two sides. The scene in the forest with the leaves and such falling was fantastic (and although you noted it in your journals here and I saw it a bit, the double reflection, I felt, actually added to the dreamy quality of the scene) - I also really liked the motel in the rain. I'm glad the film's been released and that I could see it. Congrats on another great-looking film.

One thing I've always respected and appreciated about our field is the honesty and exchange of ideas and opinions between most Cinematographers. We tend to be a group that likes to share information and discoveries (rather than closely guard our "secrets recipes"). While I was at AFI, the best 3 hours of every week was having Bill Dill, ASC tear through our films shot by shot - he was bluntly honest and made no attempt to sugar-coat things, but he was also making correct and intelligent observations; rather than a flat out "That's bad", he'd explain why something didn't work and then offer suggestions and ways to have done it better, or open it up to an exchange of ideas. It was the best way to learn and that's what makes him a brilliant teacher. Emmanuel Lubezki speaking about Conrad Hall (AC, May 2003): "He later came to see dailies, and he disliked the scene very much. He was very disappointed with the way I'd set the aperature for the scene. He was very honest, and that's what was great about him. Other Cinematographers will often say, "Oh, everything's beautiful," because they don't want to be confrontational. Connie and I became friends after that." I suppose I'm saying (and it's just my opinion), be honest, but fair with him. Tell him what works, tell him what falls short (and talk about why he made those decisions and what specifically doesn't work and other things he might have done), and listen. If he's a professional and your friend, he'll respect and appreciate you being straight with him. My roommate is a close friend and a Cinematographer as well - we constantly screen our reels for each other and sometimes it's tough to hear "No, that doesn't work" after you've been killing yourself over it, but it's a hell of a lot better to have someone trusted say it than to have an employer or potential employer say much worse.

Hey Frank~ Where are you shooting in downtown - depending on what your backgrounds are, you'd be surprised how much available light there is; I did a shoot there a few months ago and shooting at a T2 (on 5218) we were able to take advantage of all the background light. A 6K Par placed on a roof across the street gave us a nice edge light, and when the camera came around 90 degrees, still worked as a side light quite well. What format are you shooting? If you look at most anything by Michael Mann, you'll see a lot of this. There's a parking structure scene in the beginning of HEAT that works well in my opinion.

This reminds me of an awkward situation I just went through. I was called by a producing team of 2 people to interview for an HD feature here in LA. The interview went well enough - they both seemed to be a bit eccentric, but otherwise nothing to send up any red flags. One of my closest friends (also a Cinematographer) was also called for an interview. Same thing with him - the interview went well enough. Imagine our mutual surprise when we BOTH got calls asking us to come in AT THE SAME TIME to discuss them making us an offer. We both went to the meeting out of morbid curiosity. In short, they wanted us to co-DP the film because (and I quote) "We got to thinking, why have one good DP when we can get 2?!" We both tried politely explaining that we didn't think it was a good idea and they weren't hearing any of it; we left and said we'd have to call them that afternoon. When I called that afternoon to say I would not be able to do the project due to some scheduling conflicts (fortunately true), the Producer informed me that I was "pissing away my one shot at a career" and that my name would be "over and done with for saying no" to him. Something about this business draws the crazies from the wood-work.............

I own an Infiniter 2000; it's certainly a pricey purchase (around $150), but the green laser is much brighter and larger than all the red pointers I've tried, so it's very easy to see even in brightly lit spaces. I find that I use it all the time - it's great to point out where you want a cut with a flag, where a light needs to be, or to check the frame for equipment and such in small spaces that are dark - it becomes invaluable on night exteriors. I've had some trouble with mine - seems a bit touchy (not good for a device used for 12 hours on set every day). Look around a bit and I'd suggest avoiding red pointers.

Wow, a lot of great responses. This site always floors me. I'm happy to report that I met the company doing my color correction and was thrilled by what they could do. The movie is a S16 feature that's destined for a DVD release; the original transfer was done to Digi-Beta for cost reasons (the budget got chopped and so did the HD transfer). The company doing post for us have used Vegas as a basis only; they have all the plug-ins and add-ons and have gone a step further to then go in and rewrite much of the software. They have it set-up so they can digitize from the Digi-Beta masters with no compression and export it at full resolution as well; we ran through a few shots today as a test run and I was very happy with what I was able to do - in some cases it's not as intuitive or as user friendly to do some things (dropping a window over something, for example, required using a separate program), but I was able to achieve what I wanted quickly and effectively - the gentleman doing the correction for the company is very good and knows the system very well, so as I was asking for things he was already presenting me with different options. I'm sold on using Vegas for my post correction on this project (it's a low-budget horror film for the DVD market); I'm still set on pushing for a dedicated facility with a machine designed specifically for color correction on future productions that require it, but in this case, Vegas has my vote. Thanks for all the input folks - it was very helpful in my making informed decisions.

I'm in prep on a feature to be shot this summer - the entire premise is that the movie is found footage; it's been culled from multiple sources (surveillance cameras, home videos, news broadcasts, security cameras, etc). The director is absolutelu keen on having the footage feel completely real and I'm really loving doing something away from the norm (ie, purposefully destroying my own definitions of beauty - for example, we're shooting a portion of the film on an old VHS camcorder because of how bad it looks). I have all of my own ideas about what qualities "real" footage have (police videos, reality TV, etc), but I'm curious to hear how everyone else interprets what those things are that separate reality from fantasy. Any and all thoughts and opinions are graciously requested and welcome.

The producers of a film I shot have fallen woefully short of money and want to scrap the original plan of taking our Digi-beta tapes (originally shot on S16 and then transferred to Digi-Beta) and doing a tape to tape at a dedicated facility; instead, they've worked out "an amazing deal" to have someone do the color correction on a system called Vegas. What I was able to find online is that it sounds like a cheaper version of the Final Cut Pro color correction system. So, does anyone have experience, thoughts, or opinions (I'm wistfully waiting for Phil to chime in)? How much trouble and headache am I in for? Thanks.

A bit more obscure, but in my opinion the funniest "movie about a movie" is a film called "And God Spoke" - it's a mockumentary about the adventures of turning the ENTIRE bible into an independent feature. Look for the foreign Cinematographer who's constantly rambling on about his special "bread filter". Great stuff.

You're quite correct Dan - not everyone decides to attend and as such AFI has a waiting list for each discipline (as an interesting side note, some of the best directors from my class were all wait listed.....go figure). It's important to note, though, that it's usually producing and directing that go to the wait-lists (most Cinematographers accept); if you are called, it's typically with a ridiculously short notice (one person was called 2 days before classes began and had to move from another country).

Congrats everyone!

I've worked with the same 1st since I first picked up a camera and started shooting, so I'm lucky in that regard - the qualities in her that I enjoy are her sense of humor and eternal good nature. No matter what the show, what the pay, what the hours, what the circumstances, she always keeps a positive attitude. She knows when to make a joke with me, knows when to quietly gripe with me, knows when to step back, and knows when to step up. She pays immense attention to what I do and what all the talent does - after a day or so she'll listen for what the next shot is and already have the lens swapped for me with filters coming in; anticipation is key I think. She never gets in the way and does her work without drawing attention; she's ready to go at all times. Of course, she's fantastic at eye-balling focus and keeping me sharp. The other thing I really love is the collaboration. She reads the script and reviews the sides every morning; she'll watch a rehearsal and then ask me about which STORY point I want a focus pull on. She thinks about focus as a story-telling element and can improvise when need be because she gets the STORY. I suppose at the end of the day, you want to interview someone you can get along with, someone who's very organzied, cool and calm under pressure, and the more experience, the better.