Samuel Laseke

Mathew, When I am in California next I would love to meet up with you. Once again however your wrong about what I said. I don't think there is only one format. I don't advocate the DSLR is the way to go. It's one way to go. Film for the time being is another way to go. In an ideal world your story is going to define what you should use to tell it. In reality it's budget that usually dictates this for us. I am not in love with HDSLR or Film. I don't care about either of them honestly. They are simply tools that allow me to do my job. My job is telling stories visually. An example of this would be painting. Oil paint is NOT the only medium to paint and it's not the best either. Water color paintings are completely different. Digital art is completely different than either of them. All of them are completely valid forms of art and all of them serve the same purpose of expressing art and entertaining audiences. That's the point. Film is not the end all be all for every story. Film changes the feel of the story. It can give it an edgy feel or even a smooth feel. Digital can give a film a clinical, sharp, low budget, 80's, home movie camera, and more feel. Both have endless possibilities and both are uniquely different. You can't compare them unless it's for one specific story your telling. One will never be definitively better than another for story telling. Image quality is not the end all be all of story telling. The Evil Dead proves that. I will watch a movie shot well on Mini DV over something shot ok on film. I will watch something shot well on Film over something shot on a Red. I don't consider one format to the better than another in all situations. Film is certainly not the best format for every situation. The D800 Joy Ride video would likely have never been possible on their budget with a film camera. I don't think there is film that will shoot that quality in almost all available light. Certainly I have never seen a film camera you can rig to the front of a motor cycle without altering the balance of the bike. I am also betting that you would be hard pressed to find anyone that cared if it was shot on film or digital other than cinematographers. The saying that it's not the camera it's the cinematographer that matters is completely true. 28 Days later is a great example. That movie was a huge hit and it was shot on a relatively cheap camera and honestly I have never heard anyone complain about it being shot on Mini DV or even a complaint about it's image quality. Film is great but just like HDSLR's. Alexa, and the Hubble Telescope it has limitations. One major limitation is size and low light performance. In which case the story requires a different format. Even just the desire aesthetic of the movie has more impact on the use of film over digital or HDSLR. More on the movement of the camera than the image quality. If audiences only cared about image quality then there would be outrage over the digital revolution in Hollywood. 99% of people just don't care. Probably because virtually everything is digitally altered and graded in post anyways. This is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. It frees us to innovate and find new ways to shoot. To be absolutely clear I am not saying image quality does not matter. I think it's extremely important. But I am of the opinion that lighting, composition, and movement are all factors in image quality and matter more than the format your work was shot on. I also think format is extremely important just that there is not one perfect format. Really I don't understand why you think I am advocating the HDSLR as the only platform. It's one platform that has enable some amazing things to be done which can't be done with film. That's it. It's not the best or even my first choice for everything. It is however a perfectly valid choice for a lot of people. The HDSLR is better than a lot of the best digital cameras from the past. But it's still just a tool. That's the point you should always take away from anything I ever say on this topic again. Film or HDSLR are just tools and what you do with it is what matters.

I decided after watching all the review videos to get a D800 with a mosaic engineering AA filter. The sharpness and dynamic range are far superior to me than Canon. There have been a few tests like Phillip Blooms which use the exact same lens for a reference. I actually went to the camera shop today and put the 5DMK3, GH3, and D800 side by side under different scenarios and the D800 was the only one with enough dynamic range to expose both inside the shop and outside properly. No clipping was visible and the sharpness of the D800 vs Canon was like the Canon's lens was given to a 2 year old child to clean. The Moire disappears with the Mosaic filter which put the D800 and the 5DMK3 at almost the same price. I can't speak for which one is better for stills because I only shoot video. I will likely get a 5DMK3 for low light and it's not a bad camera. It's just soft and has a cruddy cast to all it's footage the D800 does not have. With CInestyle the 5DMK3 is a lot closer to the D800 but it's a lot more work in post to get it there. My sights were set on the Black Magic but it's neither in the same price range or the same class of camera. The Black Magic is $3k for a box with no handles. It has an internal battery which can't be changed. It needs 250GB SSD drives per half hour of video recorded. You must buy at least two SSD's and external power to get a full hour of shooting out of it. There is also no way to get the footage off the camera so you need to invest in a SSD drive reader. You will need a fairly expensive cage and rig for any kind of serious shooting. It's essentially a plastic box that won't take a lot of abuse. Then there is the lack of aperture control that was supposedly fixed via firmware update. The MFT version will be completely passive so manual lenses only on that one. Then you have massive storage workflow, mandatory grading, a powerful NLE, and DIT on set. It's not a run and gun camera by any means unless you buy a lot of SSD's. The Black Magic is however a great cinema camera. Like the name say it's a cinema camera which is what I do. I am going to wait however for the second version since about that time they will fill their current orders from the high demand. Just like the Scarlet the Black Magic Cinema camera is not really a $3k camera if you want to use it. It's also a Cinema camera but if that's what you need it's a great camera. Everyone I work with has one or has it on order. It's got some quirks that are being fixed but it's got a lot of potential if it's in your price range and you can live with a 2.4x crop factor. Keep in mind that makes a 35mm an 84mm lens. If your shooting indie films on location you will struggle with wide shots and mediums in most cases. Everything is a trade off and everything has it's place.

This is great Adam! The fact that this footage came from a now sub $3k HDSLR is amazing. The Dynamic Range and ability to Grade the footage is why I decided I am ordering a D800 over the 5DMK3. Also it is true that nobody but my wife and other DP's notice aliasing for the most part. This image is still better than most people see on Netflix. Great Job!

A few points that should be made. 1. Your camera does not make anything more cinematic. You make things look more cinematic. 28 days later is a great example. Cinematic is in fact not exclusive to film. Filmic however is inclusive to film. 2. Film is not comparable to digital. It's just as ridiculous to say anyone should be getting an HDSLR to shoot instead of 16mm even if they will create a better movie for most people. Not a better image but a better movie. 3. I can shoot my HDSLR with no rig at all. I have shot ENG cameras with no rig at all. I have scene film cameras with no rig. I have also seen them all rigged with rails, Follow Focus, External Power, Monitors, Cages, and more. It's a myth that you need a rig to make an HDSLR functional. You can put it on a tripod. You can put it on a crane. You can put it on a rails and use a matte box and follow focus. It's not a bad thing that you can rig it. Alternatively you can't put a Film Camera, or Alexa in the places you can just mount an HDSLR. It's not a detriment since all these camera's need rigs of some kind usually all resembling the HDSLR rigs. 4. HDSLR is a real video camera. It's not an after thought. They are designed with video capture in mind. They are also not full featured like an FS100. They lack a lot of scopes, audio inputs, etc. They are not better or worse than anything else. They are different. 5. Your story should always determine what camera your using when budget allows. Some times it's 8,16,35mm film, Some times it's full frame HDSLR and some times it's video. In fact right now I am watching warrior and there is a news shot that is video. There is no one format that works. The format NaZi's don't understand it's a big world and so many major formats exist with large industries backing them for a reason. Pick the right camera for the job. So with all that said everything is a trade off. You are not going to get a perfect camera for any amount of money much else the entry level budget. So HDSLR is a good option. FS100 is a good option. Form factor is not much of a concern unless you need to put your camera some where. If your only concerned about how good it feels in your hands you need to be more flexible or have more money. Low light is obviously an necessity according to your original post. That limits your options considerably. The FS100 would be my choice in your situation. Followed by the 5DMK3. If low light was not a concern I would choose the FS100 or the Nikon D800 for their superior image quality. If I needed the most flexible camera I would go with the FS100 because it has XLR inputs for audio, great low light, virtually every lens made can be adapted to it. It's not the best camera for every situation. It is good but not great at everything. If you want price and image quality get a D800. If you want price and low light get a 5DMK3. If you want uncompressed video for VFX get the D800. As you can see every camera has it's own purpose. Some are more application specific like film or ENG camera's. Some are more flexible. None of them do everything great for a low price. The best you will get is good enough for a lot of money or choose by the most features you need for the money. Form factor can be fixed cheaply and should not be a factor unless you have a very specific application. You will get use to the form factor in a few hours or just adapt it with rigging like the industry has done from the start. You can't have it all for the entry level pro budget. That is why Phillip Bloom has one of every decent camera made from the Sony 5n to the Red Epic at one point. Get the best camera for what you do the most and rent the rest of the time.

If you buy Canon IS lenses they have stabilization. What you really need to do is get a shoulder rig or the best tripod you can afford. Then Image Stabilization is not as necessary. Shooting it hand held with no rig is going to get a lot of rolling shutter problems and look like jello. As you progress in your skills you can get better equipment but a tripod and shoulder rig is something you will use regularly.

My first short movie I used a Panasonic HMC-80. It did not look like video according to most. But it was a challenge and there was a lot of color grading necessary. I have since stepped up to the T3i. I wish I had started with this camera since it was cheaper and more capable than my video camera. There are issues with this however. You will need to record sound externally or get a Juice link or Beach tek pre-amp and a decent mic. Are you planning to make one movie or make movies for many years? If you plan to make a career out of this get the 650D or even the Panasonic GH2. You will be able to learn about Exposure, shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, and the expressive use of lenses. You will have to learn how to control your image manually but it's also an investment in your craft and not just your project. Also the Canon and the GH2 are both 24p NTSC. You can also get decent Nikon glass on Ebay for less than $60 each. Learning the manual controls is really not that complicated. There are a lot of good videos out there explaining it all simply. I am sure there are plenty of other valid options others may know about.

The problem with your logic is that you will only know how to shoot on Film. Shooting on digital is very different. You don't need as much light. I worked a feature film that Outlaw Film did and they used 2 Kino Flo Diva lights only in one location. The rest of the time they used practicals and available light. The movie looks great so far. To the best of my knowledge you can't do this with 16mm film. If that is wrong somebody please educate me. So if we teach everyone on super 16mm how will they be prepared for the real world? I think you will find the same people who lack skill will continue to lack skill. They will just shoot ugly 16mm films. But again back on topic how does super 16mm film help a 7D user achieve the look of his example video? Because really that's all that matters to this discussion. Whether students should be force to go to Fascist film school or not is really irrelevant. Knowing how to shoot in available light is actually key to shooting what Jakub is asking how to achieve. You can actually do this with a 7D although additional lighting is my preference.

So HDLR's are not serious but feature films and several television shows are shot with them? You prove my point with this argument. I can make an HDSLR look good. There are many Cinematographers that can make them look absolutely amazing. The tool is nothing but a tool. Your saying nothing good can be made with them because a lot of people own them and don't know how to use them. Sorry but that's a deeply flawed and ridiculous argument based on prejudice and no fact at all. I completely agree there are a lot of people out there that think they are Cinematographers because they have an HDSLR. So what? They aren't actually Cinematographers. I started with a Video camera. Upgraded to an HDSLR. I have put in thousands of hours in the past 18 months with my HDSLR. I don't even have a 7D. I am however using my HDSLR to learn and do professional work. There are Thousands of commercials, music videos, House, Wilfred, and Dexter shot with HDSLR's. I don't even like HDSLR's. I think they are over used. But they gave me the opportunity to learn and make a relatively quality movie. To say they are not a serious tool is something we can factually denounce as incorrect. But again the tool is far less important than the cinematographers ability as you said. If you don't know you need lights that's the camera operators fault not the camera.

Your problem Mathew is you think the equipment is the end all be all. Super 16mm is not better than Digital. It's different than Digital. As a student that has given up far more than you can possibly imagine for this dream I will choose the format that allows me to become a better cinematographer. The more I shoot the more I learn. The more I learn the better I become as a cinematographer. Learning composition and movement in real time will teach you far faster than waiting a week to see what mistake you made. Having a finite medium limits your ability to learn. The same discipline can be obtained with any camera. Imagine having the ability to see your mistakes in real time and also trying to fix them on the spot. You don't have this option with film. That does not make Film any less important to the industry. It's not better or worse than Digital it's different. I agree we should be giving it our all. I don't think however that shooting on Film or an HDSLR or any other platform has any bearing on a persons commitment to their craft. I plan to master them all because my ability and craftsmanship is more important than a single project. But let's bring this back on topic since this is not about film. It's about how to achieve the pro film look which is subjective. If it's not can you kindly show me which page of the ASC book I can find that definition on? If you don't have good lighting, composition, and movement your film is going to suck just as much as your HDSLR footage. Which is the entire point. It's not about equipment it's about the cinematographer and how he crafts the image. This is what Jakub wants to know not be berated because he is not using the best equipment or Super 16mm film. At some point your equipment will hold you back. That's when you should upgrade. There is simply not truth to equipment making you a good filmmaker or the lack there of cutting corners. Chris Doyle uses a Couch Cushion instead of a Steady Cam! There are so many great cinematographers that make amazing movies and so many more than make average stuff with the same equipment. Obviously we will never agree on this and that is fine. To each their own.

I am not arguing that it doesn't matter what something is shot on. In fact I stated quite the opposite if you read my post. Every story decides the camera that should be used. So I am not sure what your rant is all about. Of course it matters what you shoot on. But I will take anything shot well on an HDSLR over artless crap shot by a videographer with an Alexa. I mean no offense but you are in the Students and First Time Filmmakers section of this blog. What you consider is a short cut is a way of life for us lowly simpletons. Christopher Nolan thinks your cutting corners by not shooting on Imax when ever possible. It's all relative to your distribution platform and budget. Do you honestly think that a hack with the best mic in the world is going to produce better audio than a highly experience engineer with a mediocre mic? Let's put it another way. Do you think Jakub Buczynski could take <insert the best camera ever> and best Shane Hurlbut armed with an HDSLR? I think everyone can agree that's it's not likely at this point in his career. That's the point. If we were talking about shooting a 300 million dollar feature with an Iphone your rant would be valid. We are talking about a 7D and how to become a better cinematographer. You wouldn't go into a film school and berate people for using HDSLR's instead of Imax and you would not tell them the camera is anything more than a tool either.

This is a straw man argument considering that art is in fact subjective. What I find more powerful than anything else is my opinion. What you find more powerful may be entirely based on the camera and lens it was shot on. I don't think you would find too many people outside the filmmaking community that care if a movie was shot by a great cinematographer with an HDSLR or Imax. What your shooting and how it's shot will always trump what you shot it with. The camera, lenses, film or digital, hand held, steadicam, or static shots all tells the story and these decisions are important. I believe the story should dictate the camera and lenses your using but at many filmmakers level you don't always have that option. High end equipment however will not provide you with super powers that will replace skill. Likewise a cheap camera is not going to strip you of your ability to make great cinematography. If that were true an Imax movie would only be great when played on a true Imax screen. It would be absolutely terrible when viewed on Television. Some people may find that to be true. Most people don't. I think everyone would agree there is a huge drop in quality but that does not suddenly make the movie terrible. Point being just because it was shot on a cheap camera does not make the cinematography any less powerful.

The new T4i does have auto focus lenses as does the GH2 and GH3. The GH2 and GH3 will also record continuous until the card runs out. The T4i will record I believe 24 minutes. Everything is a trade off so I would seriously think about what you will shoot most and then choose based on what you must have first and what you will use most second. There aren't a lot of video cameras in your price range that are better than an HDSLR. But if you need the features of a video camera that's what you should get. I have both but most of my clients require that I not use an ENG style video camera even if it's the better choice for their project. They prefer the cinematic look of the HDSLR. The HDSLR is also better in low light as Brian said. I just shot an entire documentary with practical lighting due to restrictions of the location. I could not have done that with my ENG camera.

Just my .02 but your problem is as others have said composition, lighting, and movement. It's also your production design. The first thing that stood out to me about the GH1 Lomo video is the lighting. The photographer shot an area with architectural lighting that was designed to look good. The second thing was composition and subjects. I am far from a Master of Cinematography but I do know that it takes more than a high end camera and good lighting to achieve the "Hollywood" Film Look. I have seen plenty of horrible movies made with high end Film Cameras, Alexas, and Red Epic's. When I started out I had a Panasonic HMC-80. That's a 1/4" 3Mos. This is my first movie. http://vimeo.com/38831359 It's nothing amazing or anything. It does prove the camera is not all important. I spent a lot of time learning how to light during this movie. I spent a lot of time experimenting with composition. I had zero experience. Nobody would work with me until after I made this movie. So I spent a lot of time learning from Wally Pfister, Shane Hurlbut, Christopher Doyle, and janusz kaminski's work. I watched all their movies. I read all the articles I could on why they did what they did. I learned it was far more than equipment, spectacle, film, and expensive lights. As somebody said before it was about everything in front of the camera. I actually never had any intention of becoming a cinematographer. I just did it because I wanted to make a movie that looked good. Because of the limitations of my camera I learned how to achieve shallow depth of field, rack the auto focus, and deal with the video look. I decided to start my journey to become a Cinematographer after making my first movie. I worked every project I could for the past 18 months mostly free. I have shot on HDSLR's, Red, FS100, GH2, HMC-80, and HVX200. I have shot some terrible footage on great cameras and great footage on a Sony 5N. Camera and lenses will come and go but your knowledge and skills as a cinematographer will always trump the latest and greatest. As others have said you need to have a relationship with those characters. The way I approach cinematography is not by look but by story. To me the camera tells the story. The actors and locations are the story. The camera should interact with the characters and the locations and props to tell the story. The camera controls the audiences perspective. The film look is achieved by everything in the frame not the camera that shot it. I have seen video shot on a T3i that was far more powerful than anything I have ever seen come out of a "Hollywood" film camera. I think you will find what your looking for if you start focusing on Composition, movement, and lighting, in general and not a specific technique or style. It's millions of little things that come together in a composition that creates the look you are seeking. This is just my experience which is far less than most people in this thread.

According to the laws of physics Simon is correct. Condensation or Fog occurs when water vapor is cooled by an object until it becomes a liquid once again. It then condenses on the object. It is impossible for an object that is warmer than the ambient air temperature to have condensation. Cold batteries actually deplete slower than a hot battery. That is the problem you are seeing with batteries in cold temperatures. The chemical reaction of the batteries is slowed by cold temperatures. The voltage drops due to the cold temperatures and eventually they can't keep up with the demand of the device. The batteries charge is not actually depleted. You can warm them up and the battery will work properly with the remaining charge. So if your batteries die due to cold just put them in your pocket and warm them up. You can put them back in once their warm. You want to insulate your batteries in the cold. Polypropylene is a good insulator. Aluminum is actually a conductor and it will rapidly remove the heat from your batteries by transferring the heat from the battery over the larger surface of the aluminum. This is why computer Heat sinks are made of aluminum.

If you do a Google Image search you will find pictures of her before she was famous. Amazingly enough she is the real deal.

I began my quest to be a cinematographer about 18 months ago. It was hard at first to get any experience. Even student films don't want to hire an unproven cinematographer usually. So I just taught myself making my first movie. I shot it 15 times until it was good. I learned lighting. That short got me some volunteer work. I took the best of that work and created a reel and a website. That got me better volunteer work as a Director of Photography. I was just hired as DP for two low budget feature films this week as a result of my reel. I think the most important thing is always try to improve your skill and build a reputation of professionalism. For me having references that clients could call has been as important as my reel. Being known as reliable, on time, problem solving, and never complaining is as important as your reel. I am still shooting on the hacked T3i that I started with. It has forced me to become a better cinematographer.