AJ Young

Every take is recorded on a camera report. Most of them feature: Camera height Lens Aperture Angle Scene # Shot (expressed with letters) Special notes (such as rehearsal shot, VFX plate, bad take, false roll, etc) Clip name (if digital) Compression/codec (if digital) Filters Big picture: the camera report isn't the only thing post-production uses. The Script Supervisor report is heavily used. A 2nd AC should be constantly in touch with the Script Supervisor to ensure accuracy on the camera report. Filling out a report as a 2nd AC is challenging, but part of the job. Stay focused, ask questions, and don't assume.

Were you using an electric or magnetic ballast? I've never had issues at 23.98 on an electric ballast. EDIT: Was it an ARRI brand ballast?

A camera test is dependent on the variables you are intending to use for the project. As a DP, you'll start to focus less on technical standards of testing camera/lenses and more on the artistic uses of the camera/lens. The best thing to do is get the equipment in your hands for a few hours. Have a friend help "act" and bring different colored objects to play with in camera as well. Here are some things to look for: FocusDoes the gearing of a particular lens move in/out as the lens is focused or does it stay static and move the elements inside? How does the lens breathe? What is the distance between the hard-stops of the lens? Does it go from CF to Infinity in a matter of 45 degrees or 270 degrees? What is the close focus? What is the front element? What matteboxes can be used with it? Are all the focus gears the same distance from the FFD? Is the aperture smooth? Do the lenses all weigh the same? Same length? ApertureT stop? F Stop? What's the "sweet spot"? How many stops? Geared? How many blades? What does the bokeh look like? SharpnessCharts are one thing, but what about a real human face? What do the edges look like in comparison to the center? Where does sharpness fall apart in relation to the aperture? Color/ContrastAgain, charts are one thing, but what about a real human face? Consistent color/contrast from lens to lens? How are the colors rendered in comparison to the human eye? In comparison to a different lens brand? How much does color/contrast change with the aperture? Is the camera sensor favorable to a particular color temp? General CameraWhat codecs does the camera record? What resolution(s)? If multiple resolutions: how does the camera down sample from 4k - 2k? What's the post workflow of the files? Weight of camera? Balance of camera fully built? Ease of use for either an one-man-band or AC? Battery type? How long do batteries last? "House power" options for camera? Video signal outputs? What signal is sent out? How quickly can playback be turned on? What type of media does the camera use? How far can a sensor be under/over exposed before it's "useless"? What's the manufacture dynamic range? What's the dynamic range you can see? How many cases does the camera system need? How does it work handheld? Boot time? Some of these may seem obvious, and they with time as your experience increases. However, the goal of a camera test isn't to measure it by chart metrics; it's to understand out this specific tool works and how you can use it for your craft. One final time: charts are one thing, real world is another.

How did you buy this? If it's through Ebay, you can use their policy to get a refund because the unit isn't working as advertised. If you bought it through Facebook, Craigslist, or in person then you'll less likely get a refund because there is no policy protecting potential fraudulent advertising. Your best bet is to get an email from the two service techs who said the unit is broken. You'll need to build a case to convince the seller the item is damaged.

I wouldn't avoid Canon products; the C100/300/500/700 and 1DC are excellent cameras. The problem is that the T2i wasn't designed for what you're needing it to do. Sorry to hear you're having a rough time with it!

Hi Jordan, It's unprofessional to provide links that count towards ad revenue or pays you for every click. If you would like to receive revenue from traffic, please contact administration about purchasing ad space. To answer your question: SDI/BNC has proven to be a consistent connection for digital and film systems, so getting an external recorder that has both options is a good idea for future cameras you'll use. On the flip side, 4K 60p is also a future format you'll be using. My vote is the Shogun because of the connection. Most of the time, depending on your type of work, projects are shot at normal 24/25/30p. But then again, times are changing!

Hi Sean, Sorry no one responded, hopefully the shoot is going well. Canon DSLR's tend to have issues communicating with external monitors via HDMI. I've run into it numerous times on my 5DII and 5DIII. Unfortunately, there's no way around it other than what you described above. What I like to do is, when breaking for lunch/next set up, turn off the camera and monitor. Then I boot the camera up and get an image on the little screen. After that, I boot up my external monitor. Usually works well, but the Liliput and Marshall monitors don't play well with the Canon HDMI signal. Hope this helps!

Have a list of everything. Anything that is "checked" will need to be inspected the moment you get it from baggage claim. If anything is missing, then you will need to report it immediately to the proper authorities. A friend of mine AC'd a show and checked a case of Ultra Primes. When they landed, they checked the case and a lens was missing. Needless to say, the airline had to buy them a brand new Ultra Prime and pay for the rental of a new in the mean time. They were able to do this because of proper documentation. Whenever I can, I ALWAYS fly with the body and lenses as a carry on. This becomes challenging on larger items such as an Alexa, large lenses, etc. It's a nightmare to get an item replaced because of theft by either airline or TSA employees. Packing wise, the cases are technically designed to keep things secure in foam. AKS items, like a Noga, become flying hammers if they're not secured properly in a case. A good rule of thumb is anything that can fly around in a case WILL fly around in a case.

I may sound crazy, but I don't believe in purchasing LUTs. Instead, I recommend developing looks in prep that fit the film's style. The look goes beyond the LUT too; the production design, color temp, exposure, etc. Can you elaborate on what you mean by larger selection of display-gamma? If you mean just different levels of gamma applied to the LogC footage, then I recommend doing it in camera on set through the look controls that I believe the Mini has. Correct me if I'm wrong, but color space limited to the color gamut, which itself is limited the viewing devices on set (most likely Rec709) and the final viewing medium (most likely a Rec709 as well for TV, laptops, etc).

The 12-60mm will probably cover all that you need, given the 2x crop factor of the lens. Plus, I imagine it'll have less glass than a 14-140mm, so it'll appear sharper. 14-140mm seems like overkill in terms of range, and the 45-200mm will be too tight for what you're doing overhead wise. Outside of food photography, the 14-140mm may be better for documentary work. These seem like they'll do the job, but my vote is the articulating arm paired with a heavy duty 3-rise stand and a "menace" arm style rig. The key to overhead work is the ability to rotate/level the camera body without having to rotate/level the stand. Also, having the ability to lower/raise the camera without tripod legs expanding/contracting is a must.

I've done a lot of overhead shooting for food DSLRs. Zoom lenses will SAVE YOUR LIFE. The Panasonic 12-60mm is good for what you're hoping to do.

I'd hate to beat a dead horse, but I here are my thoughts: It's great that you know what you want as a director. However, a cinematographer is like an actor in regards to collaboration. The director isn't doing the acting for his actors, he/she collaborates with them on how to perform the scene. The same approach should be applied to all departments. The director knows what they want in the cinematography, but collaborates with the DP on how to achieve it. There's nothing wrong with precision as long as the director isn't micromanaging. Can you imagine how counterintuitive or inefficient it is for a director to tell an actor how to say each and every word exactly? Imagine the same scenario with the DP, PD, etc. Like in theatre, at some point the director has to let go and allow their team to execute his/her vision. I recommend keeping a clear context during prep to set and manage expectations. The director should come to the prep meetings with the DP heavily prepared, but open to discuss better ways to shoot the film. Focus on getting the DP to think like you. Production is less about exploration and more about execution. If the DP is thinking like you, then he/she'll execute the way you would want it. I guess a cheesy quote can be "Give a DP a fish, feed them for a day. Teach a DP how to fish..."

Lens choice is another factor to consider. Wider lenses give a better sense of space when the subjects move forward and back from the camera as opposed to longer lenses that feel images feel compressed. I recommend getting this book: The Visual Story by Bruce Block. LINK

A DP can definitely tell if a film will suck, but it doesn't mean a DP gives a sub-par performance. The more a one shoots, however, the more they'll see the red flags of a bad film earlier on.

Did the water get into the film before or after exposure? Correct me if I'm wrong, but water is heavily used in the development process (particularly as a stop bath), so it shouldn't be damaging anything. The longer it sits in the water, though, the more you risk the water dissolving the emulsion. I agree with Bill, get it developed ASAP.

I think your 575W Leko's will be your work horse lights for fill levels. I'm not sure what your locations look like, but a Leko is excellent at shooting a bright square onto the ceiling that doesn't spill the hard light anywhere and still gives you that wonderful top soft light for fill. I think your goal in this case should be to create a general fill level and key from there; I commonly associate comedy with higher key images.

I unfortunately can't share the original test footage as download from internet; the production cleared me to upload them but I am not at liberty to allow them to be downloaded without the production's permission. In theory, the "grayscale mapping" is applicable to all digital cameras. As far as I know, film works a tad differently and the ISO of film is actually dependent on the grain structure of the emulsion (smaller silver halide vs. larger silver halide) and doesn't result in a dramatic change in dynamic range between the shadows/highlights of different film ISO's. However, "re-rating" the ISO of a stock (under/overexposing) will yield the same results. About your question on the theory, the underexposure would need to be done in camera. When shooting RAW, it's less about changing the ISO electronically on the camera, and more physically about changing the ISO with a light meter. When not shooting RAW, like ProRes/XVAC/etc, it then becomes a combination of the ISO electronically on the camera and changing the ISO on the light meter. For RAW, ISO is just another variable for interpreting the data from the sensor. It's metadata just like White Balance. The key to redistributing the dynamic range is through the amount of light you give the sensor in RAW. For example, the camera's native ISO is 800 (in this case means the most equal distribution of the dynamic range from shadows to highlights). When shooting, however, I "re-rate" my light meter to 3200 ISO which will physically give the sensor 2 stops less of light, regardless to what the camera's ISO is set to electronically. To correct the RAW image in post, you would either change the ISO of the RAW file in DaVinci to match your light meter or you use a combination of gain/gamma/lift to "fix" the image to proper exposure. The feature I did used gain/gamma/lift and ISO changes within camera because we weren't shooting in RAW, but LogC in ProRes. Unlike RAW, log images do have an ISO baked into them because they are interpreted data from the sensor, in contrast RAW files are uninterpreted data from the sensor. Log profiles of course try to preserve the dynamic range and color values, but ISO and White Balance aren't easy variables to adjust at that point in comparison to RAW. I liked how the LogC profile responded to 1600 ISO 2 stops under and decided to shoot the project at those specs. I set the camera to 1600 ISO (1 stop under exposed from 800 ISO), and my meter to 6400 ISO (3 stops under exposed from 800 ISO). In either case, the key factor is getting an underexposed image in camera. A digital sensor is just like film; it can only see so much and the ISO really doesn't change, with the assumption that ISO in general is the equal distribution of dynamic range between shadows/highlights. Therefore, changing the ISO of a digital sensor means you're giving the sensor less/more light and re-interpreting the data to compensate. Film is the same; you would re-rate the ISO of the stock by giving the emulsion less/more light and correcting it through push/pulling the stock.

I'd recommend not shooting wide open; babies are unpredictable and having a deeper stop will keep them in focus.

I did lift the highlights back up when I corrected the entire exposure in the grade, but changed how they rolled off to 100%. We soft clipped the highlights and essentially had a lot of information stored in the highlight range that we fiddled with on a shot by shot basis. Unfortunately, the JPG images I've shared may not represent the full picture, no pun intended. The difference is more apparent when screened on a DCP. However I see what you're saying, the difference between 800ISO and my re-rated ISO in terms of highlights is pretty subtle. Maybe too subtle to warrant this method I did?

Here's my take on the argument: A general audience will pick up on poor storytelling before they pick up on poor craftsmanship. Perfection in post is a losing game because it's an endless war. It's best to pick your battles and focus on keeping the audience's attention on the story. Overall, most people won't notice that there's a smiling extra in the background (Jaws) or a c-stand in the shot (True Lies chase scene). I typically weigh my options on whether to fight for a specific correction or not; there's always bigger fish to fry.

I think the key was how I reinterpreted the data in the grade through the ProRes file. I pushed and pulled parts of the new exposure to shape the dynamic range because the image was underexposed in the ProRes file. If it were RAW, rating it to 6400ISO wouldn't give me the same results in comparison to a combination of gain/gamma/lift to shadow drop off and highlight roll off.

That it's exactly it, Miquel. I should've been a little more clear on why I landed on 1600ISO - 2. We were pushing the image back up in the color grade to "normal" through a combination of lift and gain (barely touched gamma). The way the ProRes codec interpreted the data gave us the image we wanted. We made the RAW footage match the ProRes results. Miquel also made an excellent point that the Alexa can't go to 6400 either (I completely forgot. Maybe this is why hindset isn't always the best?). The only way I could choose 6400 ISO was through reinterpreting the RAW data in post. However, we shot the tests and film in ProRes 4x4, so we decided to do the previously mentioned method.

Not rambling at all! You've got your math going the wrong direction. If the meter reads f/8 at 800 ISO, then the equivalent at 1600 ISO will be f/11. When I under exposed two further stops, the meter would read f/22 at 1600 ISO. I decided to stick with changing my iso and further under exposing because of the way the ProRes codec compressed the information. The RAW shots were essentially 6400 ISO shots (three stops under from 800), but the ProRes shots were done through ISO and underexposure because of the way the codec recorded the image. My light meter was constantly reading exposures at 6400 ISO. In hindsight, I probably could've just shot the entire project at 6400 ISO, but the testing and screening of the ProRes files lead me to decide on 1600 ISO minus two further stops.

Apologies if I've placed this topic in the wrong message board; I couldn't decide if this fit in a specific category. Last summer I shot a feature that took place in the 1960's. Originally, the production wanted to shoot on film, but budget prohibited it and we decided to shoot it on the Alexa. We wanted film because, naturally, we wanted the image to look and feel like a 1960's movie; we were interested in the idea of degrading the organic image optically to make the movie look like an old film reel you would find in a grandparent's attic. Needless to say, we still wanted to emulate old film with the digital camera. Through my research, I discovered film's propensity to have excellent highlight detail while digital naturally has more shadow detail. Colleagues and mentors recommended I look into shifting the dynamic range of the camera. Sources of inspiration for shifting the dynamic range came from Martha Marcy May Marlene and Birth. I dug deep into the archives to find this old thread talking about Birth's process. LINK Long story short, I decided to mimic the methods by Lipes and Savides to shift my dynamic range into the highlights utilizing ISO and underexposure (ISO essentially meaning re-interpreting the data). During testing, I ran multiple exposures at various ISO's and landed on 1600 ISO, with a further two stops underexposed. I detailed the testing here. 1600 ISO -2 stops effectively underexposes the image by 3 stops from the Alexa's base ISO of 800. My idea was to place my exposures in the two of the curve save as much highlight detail as possible while "milking" my shadows. I shot the entire feature 3 stops under exposed, mostly in ProRes 4444 XQ and the occasional shot in ARRI Raw (sunsets, tricky color balance situations, etc). I mostly did incident metering with my meter rated at 6400 ISO. Here are the results as JPG images: What are everyone's thoughts on my process? Is the theory sound? Has anyone done this as well on a digital camera? I can share more photos if needed.

Not typically, the Oscars have a much larger and different demographic voting for best cinematography. Only cinematographer's in the academy can nominate cinematographers, but everyone gets to vote. For example, Deakins won an ASC award for Skyfall, but Miranda won the Oscar for Life of Pi.