Jayson Crothers

Did anyone else catch the vignetting in the corners on the aerial work at the very beginning (and very end) - it was the fly-by stuff of the island. Especially with a DI, I'm not sure why they'd be kept in the film. It was interesting to see Mauro Fiore doing some work that directly echoed Kaminski - the heavy backlight / massive lens flare stuff especially (towards the end in the clone center - I'm assuming that with the trailer out I'm not spoiling anything for anyone). What I found myself looking at was how well I thought close ups of Ewan McGregor looked, but some of the close ups on Scarlett Johansson seemed a bit more raw and less careful. I had a good time though - haven't got my AC issue yet though.............

Michael, I just graduated from AFI and I can assure you that sleepless nights filled with student loan fears and career uncertainties is something we all share. But as David mentioned elsewhere on this site, a career is a life-long endeavour, so there's plenty of time to build it. And I agree with Richard - you should DEMAND that your school provide you with certain things - they are getting a lot of money from you and should earn it. You have an obligation to be tough (but fair) with your expectations from your faculty and institution, and they have an obligation to meet your tough (but fair) expectations. Not just exposures, equipment, art, etc, but also set etiquette, career management, networking, etc.

Hey Mike. When you get to AFI this summer, go check with Stephen Lighthill about lens tests we shot last year - there should be prints of tests we shot comparing Ultra Primes, Cooke S4's, Panchro's, Zeiss Standard Speeds, & Zeiss Super Speeds. There's also a series of tests comparing anamorphics (Hawks, Todd AO's, Clairmonts, and Arriscopes if I recall) that are REALLY interesting; matching focal lengths, stops, focus pulls, flares, etc - very informative. He's moving his office around, so don't be surprised if he tells you it'll have to wait until later in the summer / earlier in the year. If you're in no hurry, when I get back to LA at the end of August I'll be arranging to transfer those tests; obviously you'll lose the full effect of the different characteristics of each lens by going to tape, but it's better than nothing...................

I have an upcoming shoot with some Victorian homes as locations - the director is quite adamant about wanting some atmosphere, and I'm of course concerned about possible damage to the rather expensive homes we're fortunate enough to be in. Has anyone had experience with machines that create an atmosphere that's safe (and odorless)? I recall reading about them, but can't recall where. Thanks!

All our best Kevin! Keep us updated as you can on how the shoot is going.

I've been hired to shoot an HD feature (my first feature in HD) and the producers have an agreement with the financiers that we be able to make a print of the film when it's completed. Given that my HD experience has been limited to productions staying on various video formats, the tolerance for lens performance has been a bit lower - additionally, I've always been at the whim of what was available, and now there's a bit of money to go after the equipment I want/need. So, I'm looking for input on HD lenses to look at and ones to avoid. I'm meeting with Band Pro next week to discuss the digi-primes, but with our short schedule, the director has specifically asked me about shooting on a zoom to help speed things along, so I'm really looking for thoughts on the various zooms available out there. I appreciate all thoughts - thanks!

On my Mac I have a program actually called "DVD Capture". It does precisely what the name implies.

Speak with your local Kodak rep and express which stock you'd really like to shoot with. I did a short in December of last year and the LA rep made it possible to shoot the whole show on 5293 (EXR 200), which has been discontinued for a few years now. Apparently they'd made a special order for a production and had some they could afford to give to us. No harm in asking.

This may be stupidly simple, but I'll ask anyways. Tonight on HBO they were showing "The Last Samurai" letterboxed in 1:85, except it's an anamorphic film. Why, when they typically just show a pan and scan version of films, would HBO go to the effort of showing a letterboxed version in the wrong aspect ratio?

Just found out a 35mm short I did will be making their HD master at Post Logic here in LA. I've never worked with them before; I've heard only good things, but wanted to know if anyone else had experiences or thoughts on them and their work. Feel free to contact me off-list. Thanks!

A tough question to answer because it's all based on taste, but I felt like the Pro-35 had an organic feeling, but the inherent diffusion and slight grain/noise look felt strange (not digital noise, not grain, but some kind of "thing" across the image - not distrating, but certainly there). The digi-primes feel very clean and sober to me - crisp and maybe even a bit clinical. The biggest visual difference that's quick and easy to point out is the focus, but if you're smart about it, the digi-primes can be very selective in focus as well. Having shot with them both, I can't say if I prefer one over the other - depends on story, director, budget, etc.

Two tid-bits come to mind here: I spoke with David Armstrong (the Cinematographer for "Saw") a couple of months ago and he was mentioning that he'd been hired less than a week before they began shooting and they shot in only 18 days. When I first saw the film, I too wasn't overly impressed by what I was seeing, but after speaking with David and learning the circumstances of the production and the resources he had, it's shocking what he and his crew were able to pull off. The second bit is that Phedon Papamichael, ASC, came to AFI last Friday and spoke with the cinematography fellows. Someone asked about the look of "Sideways" and he explained how he had completed timing for the film, left for a vacation out of the country, and then got a call from the director saying he was concerned the movie was too dim and was printing the ENTIRE film up by 4 points, which is what created the mushy, washed out look. Papamichael was saying the director had seen a print in a theatre with an old bulb, and because of that and his being out of the country, he lost some control of the film's look. He was quick to mention, though, that he still loved working with the director and would do so again in a heartbeat. All of this brings to mind one thing that keeps echoing in my mind: when I interned for Tom Priestly, ASC, he told me right at the start of the film: "I try to never judge another cinematographer's work too much because I don't know any of the circumstances they had to work in."

Congratulations Dwight!

Tom Stern spoke with us at AFI about his work in the film - to give you an idea of how involved Eastwood was, consider this - there was a scene being lit with only one main light (a junior if I recall) and a tweenie into a bead board for fill. Eastwood viewed the scene through the viewfinder as the fill light was turned on and off to decide whether to have it on or not. I'd say that's being pretty involved with the look.

I just completed a 2 camera shoot with the 900's and pro-35's. A few thoughts: We chose it because the director very much wanted that extremely narrow depth of field look (we were usually at a T1.4 or T2). Had we not been after such an extreme focus look, I would have pushed for digi-primes. The light loss is around 1 2/3 stops - that means the camera is working at an efefctive asa of around 100 (in our case anyways - your camera will vary with whatever menu selections you make). There are aberations inherent to the adapter - you need to carefully test your lenses during prep since the adapter will only enhance any aberations in the taking lenses. We'd originally planned on using zeiss standard speeds because there was a better deal on them, but during our prep we found that in combination with the adapter we were getting a weird pin-hole look (SERIOUS vignetting around the edges) and we swapped to super-speeds. Zooms can be tricky, both for size (with our 10-1 zoom the camera was nearly four feet long), but the deeper the stop on the taking lens, the more risk you have in seeing the ground glass in the adapter. It's suggested that you not set your taking lens at deeper than a T4, but I found anything over a T2.8 was cutting it a bit close for me. I refer to "taking lenses" because the stop you set on the lens is different to the "stops" you set on the back of the adapter. Essentially, you set one stop on the actual lens, but any adjustments you make (ie, closing down, opening up) are done on an ND wheel at the back of the adapter - for example, if your lens is set at a T2.8, but you want to stop down one stop, you wouldn't set the lens to a T4, you'd instead leave the T2.8 on the lens and dial in .3 on the rear ND wheel of the adapter - it's a bit confusing until you see the actual device. It should also be noted that adjusting one stop on the taking lens doesn't translate to the camera as a one stop change (another reason you make adjustments to the adapter's ND wheel) - I don't understand the specific "why's" though. The adapter, in my opinion, was equivalent to a 1/4 pro-mist - you don't really need any more diffusion unless you're after a heavily diffused look. Back focusing the adapter is a wee bit funky - with digi-primes or any HD lenses, you have a focus chart you can use; with the Pro-35, you're back focusing by using the grain on the ground glass as a reference - the focusing rings on the adapters are a little sticky, so back focus can take a few minutes and can be a little frustrating. There's a resolution loss as well, so for green-screen work I'd be careful and perhaps even hesitant to employ the adapter. I enjoyed using it, but as with anything, it's not for every project. Test, test, test (this boards common mantra).

Congrats everybody! As Stephen's TA, I heard a bit about the applicants this year and the process of deciding acceptance - I can assure you that everyone who got in this year should be VERY proud because Stephen had a really hard time deciding! I tip my hat to each of you and welcome you to AFI.

Welcome to the site Leah. Good to have you here.

Those straight to video slasher flicks are almost always lacking in quality all-around because they're done with no money and no time and since they essentially sell themselves, the motivation to go above and beyond is low for many folks involved (ie, directors and producers). I've shot one of these and for young cinematographers (or maybe just me) I think they're great for cutting your teeth and learning - I know that after shooting one I learned a great deal about politics (investors and distributors were ALWAYS around), speed (all night exteriors during the shortest nights of the year and not wanting to brutalize an already underpaid, overworked crew), and ust refining my own aesthetics (any time you light something, you learn). Do I enjoy watching those movies? Not at all. Did I enjoy the process of making one? Absolutely. But you're quite right - they're only one step up from a student production.

Sorry I wasn't able to meet everyone today..........stupid flu................ Hopefully next time.

Saturday at noon? Dupars or Kokomos? Looking forward to seeing and meeting everyone in person.

I'm shooting my first HD project soon. I photographed a series of tests the other day and while testing various gain levels, found something interesting that I hope someone could shed some light on. Shooting on an F900/3, I shot at each gain setting, adjusting the lighting to compensate for more/less light. At +12db I noticed a subtle shift in the color of the image, just a bit warmer. At +18 the image leapt to being very biased towards yellow - our vectorscope and HD monitor both confirmed the image suddenly turning yellow. Any explanations? Two other questions: -What's a clockit box? -What advice/thoughts can people offer for shooting 2 HD cameras from a technical stance (my primary concern being sound and TC for each camera - I'm less worried about how this questions affects my work and more concerned with post issues)? Thanks everyone!

I just wrapped a short that was shot entirely on 5293. All lab work was through Deluxe Hollywood - most of printer lights were high 30's, low 40's, so keep that in mind for my observations.; I found rating it at 160 looked quite nice, 125 if you have the light to spare, but at 100 it became too noisy for my tastes - my tests showed that it was still alright when rated at 250, but beyond that it just became murky. Considering how use to fine grained stocks we are, this stock has quite a bit of texture to it. Be more specific with your exposures - it lacks the never ending latitude of more recent stocks and requires a bit more care when it comes to your lighting ratios. I found it to be beautiful and I hope I get the opportunity to shoot with it again.

Y-fronts?

Perhaps take a look at "Red Dragon" shot by Dante Spinotti, AIC, ASC. He photographed it in anamorphic with 5279 pushed two stops and rated at 800, printing on Premier. Day exteriors were on 5274, no 85, and pushed only one stop.

Just to chime in (since I go to AFI). I want to comment on Matt's "rich mommy and daddy" comment - there are folks like that in any program for any field of study, but I've found that the majority of folks here at AFI don't come from that background - many (most) of them are here on private loans, government loans, scholarships, selling their homes, etc. My mother is a special education teacher (so take a guess at the miserable excuse for a salary that she makes) - I'm solely paying for AFI through a few loans, but mostly through 12+ months of applying for scholarships and grants long before I even applied to AFI (just in case I got in) and the continuing to do so while attending. I also worked and saved and saved and saved before coming to afford the living expenses associated with not being able to attend school and work. I think many film programs are designed to capitalize on "the dream" - that's why you have so many drug-suicide-many guns-vampire student films - there are endless supplies of 18-20 year olds fresh out of high school, not knowing what they want, thinking movies are a cool way to make a living. A strong film program, a real program, IMO, has a responsibility to also prepare students for the realities of a career in this industry - how to find work, get work, network, conduct yourself on and off set, etc. Ultimately a degree in film is pretty useless in the sense that having a degree is only going to help you start on a conversation with someone ("Oh, you went to NYU? A buddy of mine went there."), but hopefully you've grown as a person, as an artist, and know if this industry is really for you or not, and if so, in what capacity do you want to be a part of it.