Thom Stitt

Been a long time since I've been in the filmmaking saddle! A couple months ago I bought myself a T2i because it was high time I started shooting SOMETHING. The result has been a couple of short mini-docs, you can consider them "mood" documentaries. I've found myself passionately pursuing these lately, going out and seizing striking images and then discovering the themes and stories in the massive amounts of footage. Would love to get some fellow cinematographer eyes on these: "The Neon Bonfire" - a short film essentially chronicling the life story of Granville Street in Vancouver - birth, life, and death, over and over, every weekend. http://vimeo.com/19323054 "Snow Night" was my first exercise and attempt at doing something like this, a sort of mood doc with a personal voice. It was done within 24 hours - shot one night and edited the following day, and it's only 2 and a half minutes: http://vimeo.com/18774912 Hope you guys enjoy them (particularly Neon, as it's by far the more ambitious of the two). I'm still working on more of these, each one a unique theme, and I'm hoping to be able to put one out every couple of weeks and keep that up for a while until I have something like a mood-portrait of Vancouver.

In my experience, I've only informed actors with a rejection if they got a callback for a second or third reading. Otherwise, a single casting for even a short film might see hundreds of auditions, I just don't think it's really reasonable to send out rejection notes or phone calls to every single person who didn't make it. It's standard practice. But I consider it a common courtesy for actors who HAVE been called back for further readings. They deserve to be let off the hook I think, once a decision has been made.

Same here, but we couldn't flip. I've got a scene with one point of coverage on the wrong side of the line. Impossible to flip because of all the props and set dec that ends up on the wrong side. Strangely enough, because it's so close to axis, and because the character's face (and therefore eyes) aren't even onscreen (we cut him off at the neck), it's very hard to even notice. It doesn't jar you out of the scene at all. I've showed the scene to a number of experienced filmmakers, all intimately familiar with the "line", and not one of them noticed. I had to tell them, and only then did it become obvious. I'm assuming you got the shot you did because it seemed like the best shot at the time - that can't be for nothing. Obviously, having the angles be somewhat extreme helps a great deal. If it's one shot in a scene full of traditional coverage, then you might be in trouble.

If you want work - that is, WORK, paid work - as a director - And to confirm, this means directing things you may not be particularly passionate about, like shampoo commercials - Your best bet is probably to build up a reel of very professional-looking, slick work (music videos, spec ads) after graduating, and then using that reel to submit to talent agencies. Once you're represented, you might be able to pick up one or two rough gigs at the outset, and slowly build it from there. There are some production companies that build rosters of young filmmakers with "fresh" ideas, and they scout these guys and girls based on music videos and short films, and I imagine through agencies as well. as everyone else has mentioned, it's insanely difficult to get this gig, as the amount of competition compared to the number of jobs is outrageously askew.

I have seen a number of directors on set try to make technical suggestions to the DP that aren't always appropriate, it is good to respect his craft and give him the space to solve those problems. Believe me, you don't need to devour a manual on cinematography and learn all the tools and how to use them, the DP, as Adrian mentioned, is hired to be a problem-solver as much as a creative artist. Ultimately, you get to build a unique relationship with your cinematographer, and it may be totally different with someone else. And everything you learn from one relationship may end up going out the window when you work with someone new! The best piece of advice, I think, is just to be honest and open with your cinematographer - ask him what you just asked us! Build the relationship from the ground up.

It's going to be different with every DP. But a good DP, I think, more than technical details, wants to know the emotional details - If you can find a way to communicate the mood and emotion of the scenes, it's going to be a stronger collaboration. One great way that a lot of Directors and DPs do this is that, during prep, they look at art together and discuss mood and influence - Paintings, photographs. Edward Hopper comes up a lot. If there are any pieces of art, film, painting, photograph, music, or otherwise, I would share them with your cinematographer - the most crucial aspect that he needs to understand is the tone. Of course some technical knowledge helps, and naturally he needs to break down the specifics of time of day, etc with you. But for the most part, his job is going to be to translate your vision using his own techniques, so you don't need to really decide what exposure, film stock, or depth of field your film would look best in. Communicate tone, and mood, and just open up a discussion and be open to ideas, and I'm sure you'll enjoy the collaboration. The director-dp relationship is one of the most important (and rewarding) in filmmaking.

This is absolutely stunning, jaw dropping. I haven't been very regular here, but I do read far more than I post - and forgive me if all of this has been answered to death in the past, but I can't help but want to ask a thousand questions. Can you give any technical details on your equipment? Tripod, head, lenses? the time lapse dolly looks like a custom job, and man does it look like a cool toy. Did you design and build yourself? Also, how much do you research these locations, and what are your primary resources for determining where exactly the milky way is going to appear in the sky, etc? How much post processing do you do, and how do you go about adjusting exposure during longer time lapses? The footage is just gorgeous, I can't say it enough. I'll ask one (or three) more questions. Have you done much urban time lapse cinematography? the Ron Fricke influence is evident, and I'd love to see what you do in a big city. Another thing I'd love to see is this quality of time lapse in stormy weather. Thunderstorms, lightning, big swirling dark clouds. I did notice one incredible shot with distant rain showers, but was wondering if you had storm-chasing anywhere in your agenda. Thanks for sharing, and great work. EDIT: I just realized there's a Tom, a Thomas, and a Thom in this thread. That is all.

Wow, I have to say, it's refreshing as hell to see some people who really didn't like this movie. Here's one thing that really rang true with me: That's how I've felt since I saw this movie on opening night. I just didn't like it very much, and I felt like I saw a different movie than everyone else. Theater I saw was packed. People LOVED it. It shows some promise early on, but it's such a messy hodge-podge of styles, and is so inconsistent, that I just became kind of annoyed by it. It goes from satire to gross-out horror to michael bay action flick. It shifts from documentary to traditional narrative. And, most annoyingly of all, it goes from being progressive and original to completely predictable and cliched. Some spoilers ahead, by the way: I have to mention the set design for his wife's bedroom. Did anyone else notice it? Have you EVER seen a movie made more for BOYS than District 9? The one woman character's bedroom is all pink and filled with flowers and I'm pretty sure there was a Barbie Dream House in the corner of the room, because that's what GIRLS have in their bedrooms. Tee hee!! Girls!! Anyway, enough of that nonsense, where's my giant alien gun. No wait, there's a mech I can ride, even better! But first I want to vomit two dozen times on camera, cuz puke scenes are gross and funny. Uh, oh, here comes the BAD GUY!! I'd better have an easy time killing everyone else except him, so that he can keep hunting me down, and then at the very end get a special death scene all to himself.

Did anyone else have Miami Vice flashbacks when viewing this trailer? That was a wildly uneven movie visually. There were scenes that had such an intense video look that I just completely lost all immersion. I'm seeing some similar shots in this trailer. It stands out even more being a period story with huge setpieces. I don't know. I'll definitely be seeing this movie, but to be completely honest I did cringe a bit when I saw the trailer.

Took the liberty of copying some of James Cameron's thoughts on this topic: James Cameron: For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem. The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed. Increasing the data-handling capacity of the projectors and servers is not a big deal, if there is demand. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry? Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all. If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself? Something you can't get at home. An aspect of the film that you can't pirate. --------- Let's assume right now that this debate reasonably should be confined to digital filmmaking and projecting. It's been mentioned here several times that it makes very little sense to update the film standard with new framerates. I like that Cameron's getting at a theater-specific experience. If we eliminate what TVs can do at home, now or in the near future, if we concentrate only on what high end digital cinema projectors are capable of... What could/should we be seeing at the movies? And has anyone here seen a digital projection at high resolution and high framerate? Cameron seems to be absolutely sold on across-the-board faster framerates in digital cinemas. I haven't seen it myself. I don't know if many people have. The big debate these days with digital always seems to be resolution. The closest I've seen is an HD monitor on set displaying an overcranked slowmo image. To my eye, it was off-putting. Hyper video. At the very least, it would take some getting used to. But on a giant theatrical screen? I'm interested in the question of pure cinema experience - We're SO accustomed to 24fps when we go to the movies. It seems reasonable to me that a faster framerate at high resolution could result in a more "truthful" image.

I would love to see test footage of this. I'm assuming it would take a fairly intensive post process in order to get the information you want in the frames throughout your shots - Similar to Photoshop compositing for HDR photos? Would there be an entirely new process, like a DI, that involves choosing which exposures should be used in which parts of the frame?

Here's a question I've been pondering lately: Is it time for filmmakers to find a faster framerate for telling cinematic stories? We're all used to 24 and 25 fps having a "cinematic" quality. We're used to cringing if it moves at 30 or higher - it looks too much like "the news." This is what we're USED to. I got back from seeing Coraline in 3D recently. I understand that in order to get the 3D effect, the RealD setup is essentially duplicating frames 3 times per eye, and with the alternating L/R polarized angles onscreen, we're getting 144 frames being flashed in our face every second. But the movie is still shot in 24 fps. So anytime the camera pans, or tracks, or a character or object moves with any swiftness across the screen - It all turns into a shuttery, blurry, eyeball-piercing mess. It just felt like something was wrong. When we play videogames, it's misery to be stuck with a framerate anywhere near 24. We hope we're playing at closer to 60 fps, it's smooth, it's responsive, it feels real. Obviously this has to do with our input devices having a fluid translation to the screen, but nonetheless video games are becoming extremely cinematic these days, and they all look better at silky smooth framerates. Obviously our eyes see nothing close to 24fps, but this is kind of a "duh" point in the discussion. For me personally, when I shoot in slow mo, and watch the monitor while filming (at say 60 fps), it looks like such a hyper-real uber-video look it's off-putting. But I have a hard time reconciling this ingrained reaction with my experience noticing that we may be outgrowing the 24fps standard in certain contexts. With 3D becoming so widespread in the coming years, and certainly with all that James Cameron has had to say about it, is it time to start trying out faster framerate standards for films? We may have to re-train our eyes all over again, but perhaps CG and 3D films are the place to do this.

If it's such a small production, with you taking care of all the major creative work, there are few wrong ways to do things. Most of the big things have been mentioned here. I'll take you through a common practice in my experience doing short films with tiny crews. First I sit down with the script and the director and we break down the entire script visually. We discuss shot ideas, take lots of notes, and at the end of the meeting, we hopefully both imagine the same moving picture when we read the script (as well as a full shotlist on a good day!). In your case, directing and DPing, this should obviously be the easiest part. Next comes the scheduling. I actually prefer to work with one camera. multi-camera shoots, while they seem like they can speed things up, can be quite complicated. You're better off starting with just one camera. From there it's all about squeezing every strategy and ounce of common sense you have. You're going to have lights, you're going to have a scene to shoot, you're going to have to worry about a number of problems (like sunlight, scheduling issues, etc). Plan your shots in the most practical way possible. Someone mentioned shooting all your shots facing one direction - this is GREAT advice - it's easy to go down your shotlist and forget about a certain shot, and find yourself having to recreate a lighting setup looking back the OTHER direction (which you thought you had finished). So try and shoot looking one direction with one lighting setup, and then turn around, relight, and do the rest. Obviously, this is not always practical, particularly when it comes to actors. If it prevents compromising a performance, the extra work of relighting is always worth it in the end. The cinematography is there to SUPPORT the performance, so it won't pay off to say to your actors "can you just suck it up on this one? It's going to take forever to re-light..." One way to help plan this out is to do overheads. Draw an overhead schematic of your set, and draw in every single camera position (usually the camera is represented like a V, with the open part of the V being the lens). This gives you an at-a-glance look at every setup, what you'll be looking at, and what needs to be dressed and lit for each shot. And don't forget that being there in the space with the actors can change things (as mentioned numerous times already). The first thing you should do, before setting up the camera, before putting up your lights, is to run a blocking. Take the crew and the actors, and explain exactly what's going to happen in the scene. Let the actors go through all the motions (but make SURE they don't earnestly play the scene, they should not invest any emotion into performance on a blocking/rehearsal - just the positions for practical purposes). After that you can start putting up camera and lights for your first setup. Really, the list of things that can dictate the schedule of shots can be varied and different on each shoot. The main one that's always consistent is lighting setup. You don't want to have to re-do a lighting setup you've already done if you don't absolutely have to. But it does happen. Honestly, once you have a shot list and a schedule of scenes and days, it's a fairly easy process of breaking down each day one by one, and putting all your shots in a sensible shooting order. On set they'll change, but as a blueprint your shotlist will be a great guide.

This sounds like just an amazing opportunity for students and people early in their careers. My God, I can imagine it'd be crowded, with no tickets or reservations, just open doors and a casual atmosphere. So one would expect to see the likes of Roger Deakins and Wally Pfister (and David Mullen!) hanging around telling war stories to a bunch of young filmmakers-to-be with glistening eyes? It just seems utterly amazing to me that you can just... walk into the open house on Valentine's Day and enter a room full of world class cinematographers just hanging around. Really? I don't need to wear a mask and whisper "Fidelio" to a giant trenchcoated man standing at a gate? I'm going to have to drive down there next year. Would be great to check out the seminars and events too. I've always read my Cinematographer, and I read these forums on occasion, but clearly I'm a bit out of the loop with some of the industry traditions. Sounds like a great shindig.

Would love to attend one of these someday. I'm not based in LA, so who knows, but hopefully in an upcoming year soon. Can anyone give any insights into what to expect out of the experience of attending an ASC open house?