Chris Cooke

I like to shoot my wider shots first and then go in for the closeups. The reason for this is that lighting wide shots is a lot more extensive than lighting CU's. Also, I can establish a reason why light is coming from a particular direction (motivation). Such as putting a lamp in the frame to the actors left in the wide shot. When I go in for the CU, I would key the actor from that side. I also tend to shoot the entire scene in the wide shot(s) untill we get it right (the director usually decides this but the cinematographer will let the director know if there was any focus problems or framing issues). Then I adjust the lights if need be and go in for the CU's. Here, I'm also rolling on the entire scene because reaction shots are often more powerful than showing the person that's talking. When I'm in production, I always think of post and how I can make the directors and editors jobs easier. As for the actors, most of them prefer shooting this way because they will often be a lot more "loud" (I'm talking about body language here) in their acting on the wide shots. But then when we go in for the closeups, they are able to emote in a smaller but more effective way for that shot. When using multiple cameras, actors have to find a happy medium at all times.

PARs are great for low/no budget filmmakers. PAR 38, 56 and 64's are all very efficient, low cost lights. I just bought some 38's for $50.00 (CAD) and some 64's for $100.00 (CAD) with the lamps. Pound a 1K 64 flood through a shower curtain for your key, bounce a halogen worklight off some foamcore for your baselight or fill and use a couple narrow spot 38's for background hilights and backlight. Also get some black fabric from your mom's, grandma's or wife's sewing room to flag unwanted light. Chinese lanterns are also great if you have some money left over.

Depending on the feel that you want for your interview, you could also side key them so that the shadows will fall out of frame. I would use the 800w chimera for this so that you could key both people with the same light and just flag off the light from the walls. Then give them a soft fill right near the camera at eye level (if the talent is wearing glasses, you'll have to raise the fill up a bit to get rid of glare). A flagged china ball is also a good idea for this setup. Your 150 or 300 watters will probably be most efficiently used as backlights (with maybe some Bastard Amber on them) and a couple hilights in the background.

I just did a few little google searches and found that Osram was the only company I could find that actually called them Pressed Aluminized Reflectors. I even typed in those words ("Pressed Alumnized Reflector") into google and all I got was that PAR is an acronym for Parabolic Aluminized Reflector. I see your point but what about Fresnels, they are pressed glass. Also, PARs get most of there output off of the reflector, which is why they are so efficient. Fresnels have a fairly small parabolic reflector but if you took that reflector away, I don't think it would cut the light in half.

Actually a PAR is an acronym for parabolic aluminized reflector. It is a pressed reflector lamp because the glass is pressed.

You, don't have to shy away from the stock just because your camera won't auto expose it correctly. Like Mike Crane said, use a light meter and your manual exposure override.

I'll be buying a super 8mm camera in the near future and I'd like to spend anywhere from $300.00 to $600.00. The Nizo 801 looks like a nice camera with lots of good features. But I like the fact that the Professional comes with a little better lens, a tripod mount, abuilt in light meter (powered by the 6 AA's) and good synch sound options. The major thing that concerns me about the Professional is that I've only seen it come with 18, 25, and 54 fps and 50HZ (instead of 18, 24, and 54 and 60HZ). I'm in North America, and I'll be shooting shorts and music videos that will be transferred to video for editing. Will this be a problem?

I read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" as a boy and was very excited to see it made into a big budget feature and to see an ASC member doing the cinematography. Don McAlpine ASC, ACS did an impressive job on this film. I found it interesting how he managed to get that super shallow DOF on relatively wide two shots. I'm guessing that was a result of putting the background out of focus during the DI. Aslan was well done but I found that he looked soft on CU's. That could have also been a result of the DI but when shooting the animatronic Aslan it would be difficult to keep the nose and eyes both in focus without using a wide angle lens (which can look odd in CU's) and/or a ton of light. I was also a little dissapointed when I saw the first CGI shot of the White Witch's reindeer. It was almost like they didn't care very much about making anybody but the main characters look real. As a film and a story, I think this was one of the best book adaptations I've ever seen. The filmmakers translated this story onto screen much better than either previous versions.

here are some pics from some stuff I've shot. a junior through a 216 frame behind me (the camera operator). A softlight that I made in the shot and a pepper off the ceiling for fill. That little bundle of leaves on a stand was for a morning shot in which I cheated in a "window" by raking a heavily cropped 650w Arri through. That's me hiding behind the light. a redhead and 650w fresnel through a shower curtain and my little homemade softlight. Also a naked 650 from camera left. I was mid settup on this one but I ended up using my softlight again and three 650w Arri fresnels with 1/2 CTB for with breakups in front for a nice hard moonlight effect.

If you want your 3200K lights to look white on daylight film, you'll need to gel with Full Blue (#3202). In this case, leaving a light ungelled would be equivilant to shooting with tungsten stock and putting full CTO on the lights. If you need the extra exposure, you could shoot ungelled and then fix it when timing.

"Reflections" is an easy read. I found the book very informative and if you're a visual learner, the pictures definately help. The price is the biggest downfall of this book but I can understand why the cost is so high... It's very well done.

I just bought five used Tungsten 2K Strand Fresnels for $2000.00 (CAD). You could go with 5 of these and then spend the rest on stands and grip equipment. With tungsten lights, buying used isn't that big of a deal unless they're really beat up. Also, if you go any bigger than 2K, you'll need an electric on set and most likely a generator.

I've mounted a platform on the seat of a wheelchair and then mounted a tripod onto that. It actually worked out quite nice. You'll need a dolly grip to push and an operator walking beside.

A technical understanding of lighting is very important but nearly anyone can be taught the basic technical elements of lighting. It's an art. Lighting should be guided by the mood and feeling of your script. Some people are gifted with a passion and talent for feeling and shaping light. Watch films, lots of films and ask yourself why you feel clausterphobic (sp?) in one scene but happy and free in another. Lighting often has a huge part to play in this. Bad lighting is lighting that does not fit the mood of a particular scene. You can light an actor in the most beautiful three point soft lighting but if it does not fit the mood of your particular script, I would consider it bad lighting. David Mullen, ASC who posted just before me is a great artist who can shape light amazingly to fit many different situations. I would encourage you to watch some of his films such as "Northfork".

You lost me on that one man. I'm only counting three syllables. I couldn't even get through "Zoolander" once. For me it's "The Fellowship of the Ring", "Count of Monte Cristo", "Princes Bride", "The Bourne Identity".

Read David Mullen's post in this thread. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=10002 I'm shooting a short on the DVX 100 right now and I love look that it gives me especially for the price. Although, I was all the way open the other day and the video started looking quite noisy in the blacks and mid tones. Good lighting is very critical with mini dv and you must understand the medium.

Sounds like a good plan. I just did a shoot yesterday where I had a nice warm late afternoon side light on our actor and then I took a 500W tungsten spot (powered by a little 23.3 amp generator) and put it about 3 feet from our actor at eye level (catch light). I then got put up a sheet of foam core on the fill side (about one foot from the actor). The shot was an extreme CU on his eyes and I just looked at the dailies. It looked great. The camera light should be the best bet for you though since you're handheld.

In other words, there's no motivation for the warm light inside since the windows will be white.

Yes, that's exactly what'll happen.

As Justin Hayward has already pointed out, you cannot "warm up a blown out window". If it's truly blown out, the window will be white, no matter what color gel you have on the light. I would use an amber gel behind 216 that's 2 stops over. This will ensure that you don't see any detail but the window will have a warm tone.

When working with video, it can be helpfull to cary a vectorscope, waveform monitor, and properly calibrated CRT. All lenses have some sort of flaws in them (usually not noticable on more expensive lenses) and may not match exactly with another lens (even if the same camera is used). Every technician/DP will have his/her way of setting the cameras up. Art direction is in my opinion one of the most important jobs on a set because the way that a set is decorated and it's functionality will directly affect what the DP can/will do. The art director is a big part of the artistic collaboration that is necessary to get an amazing picture. You're missing quite a few crew members but got most of the essentials. I would add 1st AC(s) to pull focus, a grip team to help out the DP, an art director, a 1st AD (he/she will keep you on track) and don't forget crafts and services (food!). Your lighting director may be used to being referred to as a gaffer.

There are DP's who specialize in HD work. I'll be working with a CSC member next week who does this. If you can't get a DP who's worked with HD, I would recommend a technician. The reason for this is that there can be constant problems with backfocus. Also, since you are using two cameras, matching them can become an issue if they're not set up correctly. A good colorist can help matching problems as well. I'm sure that any experienced DP that you'd get would understand the limitations of video. The trick is to use those limitations to your advantage.

Sorry guys, when I saw the word "preset", I was thinking auto white balance. It's not that at all, actually I like the idea of using it and thinking of it as either tungsten or daylight film. Everything that I said above is true though if you exchange the word preset for auto white balance.

How is a cinematographer supposed to control the image when using preset all the time? I use it in some situations (eg. nighttime at the fair with no additional lighting) but not very often. What happens when you want an exterior scene to have a bluish tint for artistic reasons? I hope that you don't say, "we'll put it on preset and hope for the best and then fix it in post". When I'm on set, I need to know exactly what I want my image to look like straight off the camera and how I want the finished product to look. Calibrated monitors are a good tool to have but it's sometimes better to learn without one. Warm or cool cards can help you white balance. Also, if you've lit your scene with tungsten lights using Bastard Amber #02 on the key light to warm your talent up and then you white balance to that, Bastard Amber will become white. The very thing that you were trying to achieve was aborted. What you need to do is either take the gel off the light, white balance and then put it back on, or white balance to a different naked tungsten light. Another method of white balancing to get a warm effect is to put a blueish (1/4, 1/2, 3/4 CTB) filter on the lens, white balance to that and then take the filter off. Use a warm filter to achieve a cool effect. There are other ways of achieving your desired look in camera but I wouldn't rely on preset.

I'm going to be lighting and operating on an upcoming childrens show in a week and a half. Douglas Munro, CSC is coming down to DP. I'm very used to lighting for a 4x3 (1.33:1) frame and standard definition. There are a lot of last minute decisions being made on this production and I'm not quite as prepared as I would like to be. Does anyone have some advice for lighting HD and a 16x9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio (as compared to SD and 4x3). It hasn't been confirmed yet what camera's we're getting but I think it'll be three of Panasonic AK-HC930's.