Chris Cooke

I really liked what Mark Douglas had to say. Read that again, it's good. If you want to be a screenwriter... write. Read books go on writing forums. Get ideas wherever you go. If your good, it'll come out of you and other people will begin to like your stuff (if you show it to them). Interning is a great idea. We talked about this a bit in recent forums (please don't get into a debate about this here). I interned at a television station here in Canada right after high school (2002). I left my family and drove 10 hours to get there. It was a year long program where I actually paid them. I learned all that I could in that year especially after hours (reading, shooting, editing). It ended up paying off. At the end of the year they wanted to hire me. By the time the year was over, I was Directing a show and Producing another. The next year, I started stepping up to what I really wanted to do... lighting. I just rigged for another guy for a while, then I lit a few shows myself and now I'm the Lighting Director and my stuff gets watched all over the world on many different satelites and cable stations. You want to know how to make it. Well, a lot of "making it" has to do with the relationships that you create along the way. Try not to get in anybody's bad books (whether you think they're important or not). And work just as hard when nobody's looking because somebody's always watching. Oh, by the way I have a wife and a kid and I'm still taking risks and stepping it up. My goal (along with a lot of others on this forum I'm sure) is to someday have the letters CSC, ASC behind my name and let audiences get lost in a world that I helped create.

Yes, I'm aware of that but they didn't have huge cranes like the Strada 100 Foot Camera Crane at the time. I'm thinking of one shot in particular where "Butch and Sundance" were up high on some rocks and they looked down only to see those riders after them. The camera showed their conversation and then revealed the riders and did a fast zoom right in to them. Since that was the style of the day, I respect that but if one of us did that shot today we'd probably do this: Take a crane, show the conversation, reveal the riders with the primary actors in the forground and then crane up and to the left (or right), and slowly zoom into the riders. This way, the zoom would not be as noticeable.

Those would've been Kino's bigger Image 80's where the fall off is not quite so quick. But only because of the boost in output (and cost mind you) compared to most other kino's. Like Phil said, in most situations, the flo will have to be quite near the subject especially when using them for your key.

Hey, I'd be in. It's a little pricey from Calgary to LA but I'd love to spend some time with you guys. Who knows, my company (the miracle channel) might even send me. I think that I could talk them into it. A two day thing would be about perfect. Watch a special screening, talk about it, do a couple simple lighting setups, eat a meal, go to an art gallery. Good times.

For a night interior with practicals in the shot. I would use an HMI bounced off bead board coming through the window either ungeled, with 1/4 or 1/2 CTO. This will give you that blue night look. For your interior lighting, tungsten lights are the way to go. Then either white balance with the HMI off or use tungsten balanced film (depending on your medium). Some HMI lights are up to 3 times the output of quartz per wattage. I might not count on quite this much though.

HMI's are mercury based metal-halide iodide lamps. They have a multiline spectrum that is the same as daylight (5600 degrees Kelvin). A 4k HMI will be marginally brighter than a 10k quartz. They are also a lot more money but when it comes to getting a generator, you can cut your amperage in half or more. You might want to look at some k5600 jokers (http://k5600.com/).

I must qualify that statement. Let's say that you've chosen to push your footage one stop; then key would be anything that's one stop under your chosen f-stop. The same but opposite effect is true when pulling. You should be always make sure that your gaffer and colorist are speaking the same "language" as you.

You got it for the most part. I've heard "key level" being referred to as the level that the green/blue screen is at. I think what your asking is, "what does key really mean?" "Key" is whatever f-stop you set your lens to. You may have a scene where everything is under key or where most things are over key. Your "key light" is your primary source of illumination but it may be under or over key.

That's beautiful David, I'm watching "Northfork" for the first time right now and I just stopped it right after this scene. Great work so far, I'll watch the rest in the morning but I'm loving your use of angles and lighting. Did you use different sources for your kicker and your backlight or is it the same? Looks like it's the same, probably an HMI out the window. I noticed that you added a little smoke to many shots. It must have been nice doing a period feature like this where smoke is always motivated by dust in the air or oil lamps.

Do you not think that Deschanel, Storaro and Hall have all had creative ideas in the last 10-15 years. I'm guesing that he meant not to chose people like John Alton who was born in 1902.

I think that this is a good topic to discuss. I'm always looking to watch features, shorts, tv series, etc. that have great cinematography. When I find out from a person like "R. Edge" that Phillip-Lorca de Corcia and Jeff Wall do good work, it makes me want to watch their stuff. My choices are: Caleb Deschanel Vitorio Storaro Conrad Hall

It definately depends on the situation. Color determination is usualy motivated by something else in the frame. Having said that, I mostly use Rosco Bastard Amber #02 or 1/2 CTO for backlights. I find that Lavendar #54 is a nice light gel for warming up night scenes or trippled up when motivated by neon signs. If you're shooting green screen, 1/4 minus green is a pretty standard backlight.

Another question, if I'm using mainly practicals, should I get special bulbs? And, if so, what would you recommend? I wouldn't recommend getting special tungten balanced bulbs for practicals because the nice warm hue of practical incandesents look natural to our eye. I would get bigger bulbs though depending on the situation and then diffuse the front of the lamp shade (inside) so that you get a nice glow on the walls and tables but your shade doesn't overexpose. You'll have to do some tests to decide what wattage you want for your practicals. It'll depend on your f-stop choice and how contrasty you want your image to look. If you're lighting faces with practicals, you might want to see how 1/4 CTB looks infront of a the bulb to match it closer to tungsten (I've never tried this one). Also, I just saw these halogen security flood lights at home depot for $10. They have 300w tungsten halogen bulbs in them. You might want to look for something like this for lighting sets and faces (use diffusion if lighting faces because they are open faced) and then just shape the light with flags (you can make these for cheap) or Black Wrap.

When speaking about 3:1 and 5:1, I'm talking about key to fill ratios. I usually measure this by eye but you can measure it by taking an incident reading of the key (let's say it's at 100 foot candles). Then I would either block off the key or turn it off and measure the fill. If the fill reads 20 foot candles, then you have a 5:1 key to fill ratio.

I feel a little underaccomplished to be criticizing one of the greatest cinematographers ever and that's not what I'm trying to do here. It's just that I found myself being drawn out of the story and I began focusing on the camera. Cinematograpy is essentially about complimenting the story. Although, Mr. Mullen makes a good point about it being part of the style back then.

Yes, Phil is right... low key is in actuality refering to low fill. I personally very rarely underexpose my key but I often bring the ratio down to 5:1. I consider this low key. It's a fine line to what we call low key. Is 3:1 lighting low key? Yes and no. If I'm lighting for a television news show than yes, I would say it's low key but if I'm lighting for a feature/short/comercial, I would consider this "normal". I would be very interested in the origin of the term "low key". It may not be refering at all to the "key" light. It might have originated from the reference to it as in, "keep this situation hush hush, keep it low key." Since darkness is equated with secrets. Mr. Mullen might know this one.

I just finished watching Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid on DVD. I loved the way Conrad Hall, ASC lit the opening scenes. They were all in sepia and had a very interesting painterly quality. Hall is a master of light and I've learned a lot from him in many films (Road to Perdition comes to mind). I was a little annoyed though by all the zooms. Some of them were very obvious and jerky especially when accompanied by a rack focus and/or pan/tilt. I do understand why he chose to zoom some shots that were just not possible at the time with a crane or dolly. I was just a little surprised to see so many messy zooms especially since Cronenweth operated. All around great lighting and camera angles in this film, a must see.

For no budget projects, the best thing that you can do is make use of natural light and practicals. There are many ways in which you can shape light without even using tv lights although it takes a lot of practice to paint light properly in this fashion. Reflector boards (bead board, tin foil on cardboard, foam core, ceiling tiles or anything else that you think will work) are a must. Also, diffusion and colored gels (CTO for converting outdoor light coming through windows to 3200k (tungsten)) are important for use on practicals and windows. A remote household dimmer for use on practicals is a nice accessory. Also black fabric for flaging off unwanted light or to use for negative fill can be handy. If you have a little budget you might be able to buy some par 64's. They're less than a hundred dollars and are quite handy. Don't forget that you'll need clamps and/or stands for them. I'll let someone else answer your question about making it look like "old hollywood".

You can get frosted or clear bulbs for these, depending on the situation. They definately output more light than a fresnel of the same wattage. Like the others said though, you'll have to bounce it or diffuse it unless you want hard hilights on the background or for a kicker. All around good light for the price.

I just bought the book "Reflections" by Benjamin Bergery and it's a great resource. It's an excellent insight into the minds of some of the best Cinematographers. Right now there's a couple good deals with the "Reflections" book. You can buy it with "The ASC Manual" for a decent price or with "Painting with Light". Keep reading threads on this site, there are some very knowledgeable people here.

Why do you tell first time filmmakers to think small? Thinking that you're film will only be seen by your parents on their TV is a bad attitude. Mike didn't even mention that he wanted to shoot shorts. He said music video's. Lots of low budget music video's have been broadcast or at least featured on the bands website. If you impress people with your footage, you'll use your camera more than "every three years". Have you thought about investors Mike? Another good reason to buy a Bolex Rex 5 or a Konvas film camera is that it'll teach you the finer arts of filmmaking, you can't just put everything on auto and shoot. It's much more satisfying. Satisfaction may not be what your going for though Mike. You might want to just have some fun shooting videos/films and maybe someday make some money doing it. Don't be afraid of ebay. You won't find HVX 200's on their but you will find DVX 100's and Bolex Rex 5's. Just remember that thinking small won't get you anywhere. You can shoot on 8mm to start with if you want, but still do your best and think big.

As you can see Mike, there are very strong differing opinions on this subject. Phil aparently has a problem with people who make money and Rik is obviously sold on film. You have to count the costs. The camera's that David pointed out might be your best bet for shorts or small music video's. If you want your video's to be broadcast or on the big screen, it might be hard to do that with mini dv or HDV. I did not say imposible but hard. 16mm on the other hand is high enough resolution for any broadcaster and blowups to 35mm are becoming increasingly more poplular. Video or Film? It's not a question of which is better. The question is... What suits your needs and budget?

Michael, I'm in a very similar situation as you except that I have access to many different video camera's. I've come to realise that I absolutely love the pristine quality that film can give us when shot correctly (especially compared to NTSC). I'm looking at buying a film camera package within the next 6 months. Not an expensive one, but that's the beauty of film. It's the actual film that captures the image. With video, you have to spend some big bucks for decent CCD's. I'm thinking of maybe a 16mm Bolex and then renting good a good lens package. For me, I allready have a well paying job as a Lighting Director at an international television station but I'm into Cinematography on the side because I love it.

It's more of a hilight. Check out special features on the DVD's that you buy or rent to see how they light their interviews. The Last Samurai and Spider Man 2 are some movies that I saw lately that had pretty good interviews.

If you are shooting interviews, the subject won't move around a whole lot. In that case, you can light the scene dark (maybe an f2.8). This will help a lot in throwing the background out of focus. There are two main ways of doing this. Either light the scene to f2.8 or light it a little brighter (maybe 5.6) and ND it down to a f 2.8. I really like what David said about putting a glow behind the dark side of the face (or vice versa). Ellipsoidals work well for this. I find that a kicker on the dark side of the face and shoulder is much more visually interesting than a flat rim across the back of the subject's shoulders.