Jeff Tanner

First of all I don't understand the idea of rolling out on purpose. The last 20 feet or so of every roll is horribly dirty 99% of the time which renders the last take useless anyway. You actually save money by not rolling out because you don't process the last unusable portion anyway...it's been cut off and discarded. Secondly, if you roll out you aren't able to check the gate and see if the previous take(s) is/are clean. Mostly because after you roll out the gate will be dirty with the bits of emulsion and other particles that are at the end of every roll from where the film was cut at the factory. It's not a smart practice to roll out on every roll, on purpose, IMHO. Jeff

George has lost it. It's official. Respectfully, Jeff

I started as a PA, working for nothing. Eventually I got paying jobs and after a few years I was working on the grip/electric crews as a 3rd electric or grip. Six or seven years later I was working in the commercial/music video world as a gaffer and that is where I learned the most about cinematography. Not the "X's and O's" but the subtle differences in lighting styles between the different DP's that I worked with. After a few years of working as a Gaffer, I shot some spec work for a friend of mine that worked at an advertising agency and those spots gave me something to show to prospective clients. After the first paying job as a DP everything began to fall into place and now I'm able to make a good living doing what I love. In the early years it was tough...very tough. Making little to no money and trying to stay in school was extremely hard financially, physically and emotionally. But in hindsight, it was all well worth it and I wouldn't change a thing. Regards, Jeff

I just received word that Cinematographer Neal L. Fredericks died over the weekend while shooting aerials in Florida. According to reports everyone else in the single engine plane survived (four people) but Neal did not. He was strapped into the plane with a camera and went down with the wreckage. Neal was probably best known for his work on "The Blair Witch Project" but has many other credits to his name, both features and commercials. While I did not know Neal personally, he was a contributor to this forum and it is sad to lose someone from our motion picture fraternity. Respectfully, Jeff

I was pleasantly surprised as well (with the live event). The water is what blew my mind. I thought to myself "How in the hell are they going to tear all of this stuff down overnight?" However I was disappointed by the "show". I'm not sure if NBC is responsible for the video feed but there were several points that I thought the picture looked horrible and often the shots were far too wide to see anything worthwhile at all. But it must have been impressive seeing it in person! Jeff

I've done a couple of jobs with 7212 (and one with 5212) and I love this film stock! 7248 was my favorite stock for 16mm until I shot some tests and a couple of commercials with the new '12. It has a tight grain structure and wonderful color reproduction and the best part is you don't have to sweat bullets if the light fades and you end up underexposing a bit. When underexposing 7248 the grain would immediately start to jump out at me, but not with '12. When I transferred my tests, I found that I could underexpose the 7212 about 1 1/2 stops before I could notice any substantial increase in grain (This is my personal opinion. Do your own tests, you may find that you can underexpose more and still have a good image...it's all a matter of personal taste). I really have to hand it to Kodak. They have developed stocks that have all of the benefits of yester-year film stocks plus they have increased latitude, decreased grain and they have fine tuned each stock for a particular use/look. This is a great time to be shooting film! Jeff

:lol: Jeff

This will be a rental situation. Probably for a week. If all goes well, we might purchase one or two...we'll see. Thanks for the lead. Jeff

I will be shooting a show next month that will require the use of several lipstick cameras. It's essentially a cooking show that takes place in a very nice kitchen (on location instead of a studio). I won't be able to shoot from above with a jib arm due to the low ceiling so I'll need to strategically place a few lipsticks under cabinets and such. I would like to get the best picture quality possible (while recording to NTSC Digibeta) so any cameras that can run a component signal would be preferred. Each camera will have it's own field deck; there won't be a live switch. Any suggestions on makes and models? Respectfully, Jeff

These debates on film vs HD (or insert digital format of your choice here) are tired. Everyone seems to forget that the format is not the most important element of a good movie. We are lucky to live in a time where there are so many formats readily available for documentaries, features, commercials, corporate work, etc. The bottom line still remains this: If you can't light a scene it doesn't matter whether you're shooting 70mm film or miniDV, your career will be short. It's obvious to anyone working in this field (cinematography) that film will be around for at least a couple of decades and probably beyond. Do you think that a show like "Friends" or "CSI" or any other popular show is concerned about film costs? If the cast can make $1,000,000+ per episode why would the studio be concerned about a minimal savings using digital technology over film? These shows make HUGE amounts of money and if the producers, directors, cinematographers and crew are comfortable with a format such as 35mm why does anyone think that the production is somehow itching to go digital? As David Mullen stated earlier, the vast majority of features, TV shows and regional or national commercials are still shot on film. There is no reason to change that now. IMHO the downfall of HD is that it is still in its infancy. There have been so many "new" HD formats, so many "new" cameras, so many progressions in the technology over such a short time span that it is worrysome to a great deal of people. "Will we be switching cameras and post facilities and formats every season" seems like a question worth asking before making the final decision on a format. Respectfully, Jeff

The "top" DP's get whatever they ask for. There is no standard. I know of one DP who's rates for commercial work are $10,000/shoot day, $7,500/prep or scout days and $5,000 for travel days. On top of that he gets 4 star hotels, flies only first class, has a driver and gets $150/day per diem. Just as we all set our own rates, so do the big boys. Jeff

"Polaroids are just a form of low cost insurance just in case one wants to make sure they have not made a slight error in their contrast choices." That is exactly why I don't understand using polaroids. How can you judge contrast on a motion picture negative by looking at a polaroid. They are 2 different animals. The contrast ratio on a polaroid is nothing like the contrast ratio on a negative. And what happens if you're shooting interiors on 5218 and then switch to 5248 for exteriors. Those 2 negatives are very different, are there corresponding polaroid choices for each motion picture stock? Why not just look through the viewfinder and use your meters? "Nowadays, if clients are on the set, isn't the production being done in HD so they can look at the monitor?" Not in my world. I shoot film (35 and 16) much more often than HD. Probably 100:1 And that's one of the reasons that I love film. Ad agency types can't chime in about color, exposure, highlights, shadows or anything else when they are watching a video tap. Give them an HD monitor and all of a sudden the most Jr. art director is a cinematography expert. Jeff

I'll have to agree with Tony. Polaroids add a whole lot more questions to a set than answers. And I can't see the benefit of walking over to the client and saying "look at this polaroid. But ignore the highlights, they won't be that blown out... and the shadows will be a bit richer...and the framing is not quite accurate...etc." I can't find a worthwhile reason to use polaroids. They don't convey any useful information to me about what is exposed on the negative. I'm not saying that polaroids don't help other DP's, they just don't help me. Jeff

Search the archives on this topic. It has been covered in detail many, many times. David Mullen and Mitch Gross along with some others have provided many reading lists for beginners new to cinematography. Start there. Jeff

In my opinion you have it backwards. If I were you I would buy a digital camera first and worry about film later. Get yourself an inexpensive DV or miniDV camera and learn how to be a filmmaker. Learn how to cover scenes from multiple angles. Learn how to tell a story on a visual medium. Learn how to frame your shots. Get comfortable executing difficult camera moves. Practice shooting hand-held (with any digital image stabilizers turned off). Learn how to light scenes with the items found around your home (like bed sheets, tin foil, mechanics work lights, flashlights, lamps and lets not forget about "controlling" the light that the sun provides). Your choice of medium is the least important thing at your stage. Use your money wisely don't just jump into film...it will end up being way to expensive to learn with a film camera. I forget whose quote this is but it is a quote to live by (actually I'll paraphrase it): If you can't light, it doesn't matter what format you shoot. Good luck and have fun! Jeff

35mm film has been High Def for decades (16 or 17 megapixels if my memory serves...John Pytlak, is that about right?). It's nice that video companies are finally trying to catch up. Give HD cameras a few more decades and they should be approaching today's 35mm standards. Of course in a few decades 35mm will be much improved as well so I doubt that HD will catch up but I'm not an expert such as yourself. It all is really pretty simple to understand. Film is superior for image capture, period. And do you actually think that being less expensive is what matters most to cinematographers? Sorry, but you are mistaken. In the late 70's/early 80's people just as yourself said "film is dead! Video tape will bury film." They were wrong. Then in the mid-late 80's they said "Film is dead! This time it's for sure, Video camcorders are here to stay. Sell your film equipment, it's a broadcast revolution!" They were wrong again. Then a few years ago those same types of people said, "Now we mean it. Film is officially dead! HD is the new wave and will kill film once and for all." Guess what. Wrong again. Have you tried to book time in a telecine suite lately? It's tough to get in the door not because they are understaffed but because they are so busy. Have you talked to any camera rental houses lately? It's not easy to get a film package because of all of the work out there (worldwide I might add). I only wish that Arriflex and Kodak had someone as knowledgable as yourself on staff to save them the huge embarrassment of releasing new products such as the Arricam and the Vision2 filmstocks when the death of both companies is so close. It's such a shame that all of these working professionals are so in the dark about their livelihoods. Thanks for bringing your wealth of knowledge to the downtrodden cinematographers of the world. We owe you.

What type of test? Exposure? Focus? Flaring? Are you testing a lens that you would like to purchase or is it a lens that has recently been on the workbench? Shooting some footage with the lens will answer some questions but if you are testing for specific things, you need specific tests. For instance... If you are testing the focus/sharpness of a lens, you need a chart with a seimans star and you need to shoot it at varying distances. More information will help you get more specific answers. Jeff Tanner

-- I guess it will motivate me to earn those three letters... David, I will suggest that you've already earned them. Congratulations! A much deserved addition to the ASC. Jeff Tanner

Thanks Mitch. Send them to jefftanner@eyevox.com I appreciate it. And thanks for the reference to Focus Optics that you gave me a few months ago, I got my lens back and it works wonderfully. Jeff Tanner

Does anyone have any recommendations on where I can purchase two 25' microforce zoom cable extensions? Birns and Sawyer doesn't have any and they are quite pricey. Thanks. Jeff Tanner

Jason, Please do not cross post messages in different categories. It won't get responses any quicker and I for one hate it. Art direction plays a huge roll in period films. Wardrobe must be consistent with the time period your going after, automobiles must be consistent, etc. If the project is going to telecine, creating the "look" of period pieces isn't that difficult but you must decide beforehand what you want the film to look like and that depends on the story. Should the film be desaturated? Should it be dirty with scratches like it's been in the attic for 40 years? Should it be black and white? There are a thousand things to consider but wardrobe and locations are the first hurdle. You can't have items in your shot that did not exist in the period of time you are trying to recreate. Jeff Tanner

Great list of films so far! I'll add these: "The Natural" - Caleb Deschanel - Absolutely gorgeous film. "True Romance" - Jeffrey Kimball - The lighting fits the story perfectly. "The Man Who Wasn't There" - Roger Deakins "Shawshank Redemption" - Roger Deakins - Another film that has the cinematography as a character.

Before transitioning into a DP I was first a PA, then an electrician, then a gaffer. As an electrician and Gaffer I was in the union and it was a huge benefit. As a crew person "under the line" it is impossible to have a voice that production would listen to. Every production that came to town tried to screw us because we couldn't possibly know any better (since we didn't have a Los Angeles address). Never mind that we all worked on major Hollywood movies, national commercials, music videos for the "big names", etc. Without our union we had nothing to bargain with. The union took the weight off of our shoulders by negotiating for us. If a production wanted the skilled labor, they paid the union rates (this was the case regardless of the production being Union or not). Like David mentioned, without the union we would be forced to work for whatever the production wanted to pay or we would not work at all. Unions are a huge reason why so many people are able to make a living in this crazy business. Even those not in the union benefit daily from their existence. Now that I am no longer a gaffer, I'm no longer a member of any union but that is not because I believe that they are useless. It is because as a DP I have a voice that IS listened to. If I were offered a union show, I would join the union but until then I can put that money to better use. Jeff Tanner

Sorry, I just re-read your post... wide shot+exterior= Lightning Strikes Jeff Tanner

Look into using data flashes. They are pretty standard "rock and roll" lights that you manually fire using a remote button. Check with a vendor in your area that specializes in stage/live event lighting. You can gang several of them together using XLR cables and they will stay on as long as you hold the button...up to 3 or 4 seconds. Any longer than that and they have a protection feature that shuts them down automatically. You then need to disconnect them from power and reset them (it sounds more troublesome than it really is). They do a really good job for tighter shots or interiors at night when budget's won't allow for lightning strikes. Mitch is certainly right though, if you can use lightning strikes do so. There really is no comparison. Jeff Tanner