AJ Young

What camera system are you looking at? 800ISO is good, but if you're limited on lights and output, then maybe a system with a higher base ISO may help (IE: FS7 at 2000ISO). You'll probably need a lot of fill light to keep a high-key ratio. I would recommend some ceiling bounce fill light coming directly from camera. It'll spread across as much of an area as possible. Two HMI's are better than one, especially with day interiors. You're probably going to run out of sun on a lot of days, so you'll have to do night-for-day at some point. Two 1.2k HMI's can cover a lot of windows in most INT locations and make night-for-day at a small budget less painful. I would also test a look that morphs the shadow detail to a high-key look. IE: Black shadows, but exposures normally 1-2 stops under are pushed up to be 0.25-0.5 stops under while the rest of the shadow detail rolls to black. Something like that.

I haven't used it personally, but I have used the knock off ARRI tungsten heads and they are terrible. If anything, the knock off M18 will not work as advertised. The ARRI M18 will do the job, but make sure to get the electronic ballast if you're doing high speed work like 240fps. It's pricey, but necessary for the quality. Have you thought of using a tungsten unit?

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing, everyone! Being a non-union DP, are there any seminars, courses, or general education a freelancer can take to learn more about the different retirement strategies you all have mentioned?

These look pretty good. You're too harsh on yourself, Phil! I almost didn't see the barrel distortion until I looked at the door in the wide shot. Will the short be posted online in the near future? I would love to watch it.

I'm curious to hear what everyone's plans and experiences are when it comes to planning for retirement in the film industry. How common are Traditional and Roth IRA's? What retirement does IATSE provide? What can freelance DP's expect with Social Security? What is the average age of retirement for DP's? Do they ever truly retire? Hopefully we can hear perspectives from the full spectrum; those who are nearing retirement, those mid-way to retirement, and those just beginning in the industry. ------ To get things started, I'll share my experiences. I currently have a Traditional IRA that was originally a 401k with the movie theatre company I worked at as a projectionist. Currently, I'm a freelance DP in LA. I won't say I'm exactly raking in the income, but I'm definitely staying a float with my primary source of income from cinematography. That being said, I annually make contributions to my IRA. My plan is to keep saving into my IRA and retire around 68 or 70 years. Of course, I hope to live past 80, but I'd rather assume the worst and figure it out from there. I do intend, current political climate excluded, to draw from US Social Security upon retirement age. However, I want to play it safe by eventually contributing the maximum annual amount to my IRA. Of course, that's close to 40 years away from me, so I need to manage my expectations during the coming decades.

Nothing, actually. She said it was one of the best movies she's ever worked on, top to bottom. Everyone brought their "A game" the film and are deserving of all the praise.

It should be noted that Bradford Young is the first african-american cinematographer nominated for an Oscar. My wife worked on La La Land and loved the crew on the film. Linus worked with Panavision to get a classic Hollywood musical look with the lenses and camera system and it definitely paid off. Ari Robbins should get some praise for his excellent operating work on the film; check out his Instagram for some awesome footage. Fun fact: they had three champagne rolls! In my personal opinion, the cinematography of Zootopia was phenomenal, but of course animated films rarely get the attention they deserve for this aspect. Final person opinion: Bradford should win. Arrival looked BRILLIANT.

Cheeky, but I meant these lenses: http://www.richardgaleoptics.uk/dogschidtoptiks/trumpsystem/

Excellent point.

I don't believe a DP should own a lot of gear, but I do believe they should own glass they love. Here's what I've got: Nikkor AIS lenses: 20mm F2.8, 24mm F2, 35mm F2, 50mm F2, 85mm F2 MIR 24M 35mm F2 Helios 44-2 58mm F2 Jupiter 9 85mm F2 I'm particularly interested in the DSO Trump Lenses. Has anyone worked with them?

I highly recommend getting someone to produce your film so you can focus on directing. In my experience, a director who is also the producer on such small productions is usually a bad combination. The producing side usually takes over and makes it difficult for you as a director to do you job. You're stretched too thin to direct and produce and the negative results will show up on screen. On shooting film: I don't recommend it for this budget level (I'm assuming you're aiming for USD $500k or less) because film stock, processing, initial scanning, and final scanning will demolish your budget leaving little for you to use for actually making the movie. Digital cameras look great and some excellent indie films have been shot on the lowest end of digital cameras. Plus, the costs will help you put funds towards what really matters: production design, crew, post production, etc. You can write the film you truly want, but the reality is, as a first time feature director, it won't turn out the way you truly want (especially if you're producing it yourself). I recommend writing a modest script that can be shot modestly. This first feature will be a huge learning curve for you and "putting you eggs into one basket" isn't a good idea. Save the stories and scripts for the films you truly want for the next features when you get more financing, have more experience, and can do your scripts justice. Learn from this movie with a script that, of course you'll love, but isn't your prized race horse.

I think you should write down specifically what you like about the images you're finding. Figuring out how a shot was done is great, but make sure to figure out why the cinematographer/photography chose to make the shot the way it is. Knowing why a shot needs to look a certain way will help you figure out how to shoot it much easier. For how most cinema shots were created, if it's a major feature film, there will generally be articles (most likely from American Cinematographer) that detail the general practices for the film. The specifics for a shot may be tricky to hunt down, but sometimes they do exist. Also: Reflections - https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Twenty-One-Cinematographers-At-Work/dp/0935578161 ; This is a brilliant book that shows overhead diagrams of how some of the best DP's light Roger Deakins's Forum - http://rogerdeakins.com/forums/ ; People have, and continue still, to ask Roger how specific shots were done. Guess what, he usually responds! Organizing your saved stills is up to your organization tastes. The Mac OS allows for "keyword" tagging of files, so you could apply key words to the actual image file and search for those keywords (and thus the images) later when developing a look book. The book you've mentioned by Salvaggio looks like a good choice, but it seems to be mostly focused on film and very little on digital. In fact, it was last updated in 2008 (according to Amazon), so the information on digital (which by the table of contents, is very little) will probably be slightly out of date. Of course, it's not a bad thing to have a thorough understanding of shooting on film, but it may not be a practical education because of the realities of today's cinematography. It's like learning how to program Basic for MSDOS in today's world. Not a bad thing, but also not entirely practical. That being said, the book will still teach you a lot; the first few sections are independent of film/digital and are the foundations of your education. I highly recommend picking up the American Cinematographer Manual, 10th edition or newer. It'll cover a lot of the technical aspects of cinematography, especially digital capture.

I recommend the 502; it'll last for a very long time and is an excellent operating monitor. Higher end cameras like the Red, ARRI, etc don't really need external recorders at all. It's hard for a lower end recorder like Atmos to keep up with the new licenses for RAW recording of newer cameras through the years and I wouldn't be surprised if a new Sony or Canon camera comes out with an improved RAW external that requires an entirely new license that may not be applicable to the Atmos Inferno. You're better off renting a recorder for specific projects and purchasing a 502 monitor for all of your projects.

Welcome, Michael. The Pocket Camera is an excellent camera, but don't be fooled by the limitations of sensor size. Sensor size actually proves to be useful when a S16 or Micro4/3 sensor is paired with a "speed booster" aka a focal reducer. Furthermore, the depth of field on small sensor sizes makes it easier for a one-man-band DP to pull focus while operating. Pixel quality is what you should look for in a camera, but resolution is becoming a factor now as more and more productions are beginning to adopt 4k as the "base resolution" for their projects. The infrastructure for streaming 4K isn't fully built yet, but consumers are already investing into 4K TV's and computers, so it's becoming apparent that an owner/operator DP needs to have a camera that at least shoots 4K. There's a lot of unknowns currently about the GH5; it is still a DSLR and has usual draw backs from a stills camera, but Panasonic is definitely making the GH5 a video friendly camera with built in features like focus peaking, logarithmic profiles, etc. The most buzzed about news on the GH5 is it's ability to record 10bit 4:2:2 images internally at 4k; as of yet no DSLR can do that without any warranty-voiding modifications. (Side note: I don't think anyone knows what the actual internal codec will be, however; I believe H.265, which could still be a HIGHLY compressed image that could counter-act the bit depth) Since you've stated your thirst for knowledge, I'll give a little explanation on bit depth. Simply put, bit depth determines the amount of information a pixel can have in regards to color and luminosity (brightness/darkness). The higher the bit depth, the more information is available on that specific color and brightness/darkness value for that specific pixel. The Pocket Camera records an excellent compressed RAW file 12-bit (a lot of color and brightness/darkness information) and great 10-bit ProRes files (compressed, but incredibly malleable images). What it lacks in resolution the camera makes up for in pixel quality because of bit depth. Bit depth is a tricky concept to grasp, but once you fully understand it (I'm talking the math behind it) then you'll be able to determine the pros/cons of which bit depth will work with a specific project. You can find more reading on bit depth here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/bit-depth.htm and https://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/bit-depth-explained-in-depth--photo-8514 So, why is bit depth so important? Most streaming only does 8bit compressed files, so why not just shoot in 8bit? Shooting a higher bit depth allows the DP and colorist more information to develop the look of the film and make any corrections in the color grade. Furthermore, visual effects, particularly rotoscoping and green screen work, is entirely dependent on the bit depth. A higher bit depth allows for better visual effects. What bit depth works for you depends on the project, but in general 10bit or higher is desired if you're intending to do more than a simple color grade. That being said, countless great films have been shot on 8bit cameras and your artistry isn't limited to the quality of the pixels, but your understanding of the pixels limitations and how you can use the limitations to your advantage. For books to read on cinematography, I highly recommend: American Cinematographer Manual 10th or newer - Dry read, but the defacto book on cinematography from a technical stand point. You should have this with you often. Matters of Light and Depth by Ross Lowell - Heads up, there's a lot of puns in this book. BUT, it's one of the best reads on the artistic uses of cinematography and photography. Cinematography: Theory and Practice by Blain Brown - Pretty good book on the general aspects of cinematography Motion Picture and Video Lighting by Blain Brown - Another good book by Brown. Some chapters repeat the above book, but the lighting is a great starting point The Visual Story by Bruce Block - EXCELLENT book on composition for cinema. I frequently turn to this book as a cheat sheet during prep. Film Directing: Shot by Shot by Steven Katz - Great book on coverage for scenes. (Coverage = shot list) Cinematography for Directors by Jacqueline B. Frost - Good book on the director/DP relationship. The book is geared for directors, but you can apply the concepts both ways Audition by Michael Shurtleff - I believe this is the most important book for any artist in the storytelling world. It's designed for an actor's audition (and some parts you can skip), but the overall 12 "guide posts" to an audition are actually an excellent blue-print for how a DP can artistically break down the narrative of a film. I highly recommend every read this book. Whether or not you agree with it entirely, I'm sure an individual could find some new insight. Cinematography Database is also can excellent website for technical know-how and career advice; they're his YouTube channel is also excellent. At the end of the day, your Pocket Camera will treat you well and you'll get some terrific images out of it. I would suggest keeping an eye on the GH5 during the year and wait on buying a new camera. The pros and cons of the GH5 won't fully be realized until at the earliest the end of 2017. For now, you'll be able to get professional images out of the Pocket Camera, just at a 1080p.

Have you looked into DSO Trump lenses? They're built from Helios 44-2 lenses and are extremely customizable for various effects. http://www.richardgaleoptics.uk/dogschidtoptiks/trumpsystem/ Food for thought; great character lenses, which is what I assume you're looking for.

If it's like the Helios 44-2, it'll flare like no-one's business and will have less contrast. However, it's a shame to hear about the loss of sharpness past T4; the Helios 44-2 maintains a decent sharpness wide open at a F2. That being said, I think you're better off with the Sony. Of course, you can look into the Helios 44-2 58mm for like $20 and a Jupiter-9 85mm for like $100! You can't put them on a PL, but are excellent glass nonetheless.

I have a full set of Nikkor AIS lenses and I LOVE them. I recommend doing it, especially because, in the SLR world, they have the longest focal flange distance and have been somewhat adaptable to any camera (short of PL of course). I cinemodded them myself, much like Phil, and they've treated me well. However, Duclos does superb work. Pull the trigger, get the AIS! Great character, sharp images, and cost effective.

What kind of look are you hoping to achieve with anamorphic photography? What aspects from your research have led you to the conclusion of anamorphic? If it's just the aspect ratio, then you're better off shooting spherical (normal) and cropping in. As a note for anamorphic, there are two types of "squeeze" factors: 2x and 1.3x. These squeeze factors are entirely dependent on the aspect ratio of the medium. 2x is used for a 4:3 aspect ratio sensors/film (such as 4perf film) 1.3x is used for 16:9 aspect ratio sensors/film. That being said, using a 2x anamorphic lens on a 16:9 sensor won't work very well. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it essentially crops the image. --- Let's go back to the reasons for shooting anamorphic. What characteristics of anamorphic are you looking for? If it's the oval bokeh, then your only option is of course anamorphic or an adapter, but if it's these, then you can fake them in camera: Streaky lens flares can be created with fishing line across the lens Aspect ratio can be created by cropping the 16:9 image Shallow depth of field can be created with shooting wide open --- As a general aesthetic for science fiction, what sells SciFi is YOUR interpretation of what the future will LOOK like and how it is different from today's look (this is also assuming it takes place in the future). On the whole, it's usually a cleaner, sharper, and more clear future. But, ask yourself what does the story call for? What kind of world is this SciFi tale taking place in? Light is usually decided by what is natural in the environment (ie: window light for Vermeer). What environment are these characters in? Ask these questions and the answers will help you figure out how to do it. --- If I were you, I'd go with the CP.2's. Excellent glass and perfectly designed for the F3.

You're not far off. :) Jacob, there are very few cinematography internships in LA; the two you've mentioned being the biggest. I recommend expanding your scope of internship; have you looked into interning at a color grading facility for example? Knowing how to color a film will incredibly help you as a DP. I also recommend looking into interning at a VFX company; more often than not DP's are needing to know VFX. Interning at a camera house is great because you'll be able to meet AC's, play with the gear, and open up a network connection. But, go beyond cameras. Here's a link to nearly all of the rental companies in LA: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1BD3ESpC7T8ncsemR_MTtnxVRh5Q&ll=34.0866050833844%2C-118.26574149999999&z=9 Try contacting these rental companies, and don't be afraid of the smaller ones like ProHD or HD Optics; they still have working professionals and clients who may need crew.

TV Logic 5.5 is a good monitor, so is the SmallHD 702/502. Wireless video transmitters can be tricky. Teradecks are decent, but cut out if there are too many "things" in the way such as people, walls, etc. Wireless FF is key: Preston is top of the line, but the low end DJI focus has proven to be pretty decent. However, I still recommend a higher end wireless FF system that can talk to the camera; hitting record on a flying rig with a steadicam isn't exactly easy. You'll want a FF system that allows the AC to control the camera remotely. The ARRI WCU for the Mini is excellent for this!

A distribution box for the Mini is pretty popular out here in LA. http://www.woodencamera.com/d-box-alexa-mini-v-mount-p/209200.htm In fact, most Alexa Mini packages come with this D-Box included; I would check with the rental company on what their power distribution will be. The Wooden Camera D-Box takes the power and EXT control of the camera. I recommend, however, to get re-route the external control from the Mini to the MDR with (correct me if I'm wrong) an 8-pin lemo to 3 pin? Something like that. The D-Box has 2pin, 2pin, and D-tap, so powering the MDR will be no problem.

Brian is correct, you'll most likely not receive any funds in return from the film's backend. BUT! You never know what explodes in the market. Legally, I can not be held liable for whether or not this excerpt below from my contract will work for you. It was designed specifically for me by a lawyer specifically for this one project. That being said, for purposes of education, here's an excerpt from a contract for a feature I did last year: Take what you will from it. With contracts, however, remember that they're only as good as the people signing it. You can use it in a court of law, but often times it's not worth the money and time for a legal battle. I HIGHLY recommend you hire a lawyer to draft a contract. I understand the rush in your situation, but if the production wants you then they can wait. Note that one of the lines can be used against me: All ongoing and unpaid operating expenses of the Production Company. I missed this part when I first signed, but went with the project anyways with the understanding that: For low budget films, it's unrealistic to expect any money from the back end. They usually break even with their revenue and the production company has far more expenses left uncovered from post that will prevent any income to reach you. It's the same with the income from distributors to the production company.

If I may, I would like to share my experiences shooting features at this budget level: Director as Producer I believe it's totally legitimate to shoot a feature with a budget like this ($30k), but the biggest challenge as a DP will be working with the director who is also producing the film. In the same breath you'll be discussing how to cover a scene and have to talk business about hours. It becomes challenging for the DP because they essentially become the liaison between the crew (if there is one) and the producer (who is also the director). Inevitably, the DP will have to deliver bad news to the producer side who won't take it well and will have those negative feelings cross over into the director side and cloud their judgement or create animosity between the producer/director and DP. As a DP, you'll be working with an individual who is being pulled in way too many directions; we all know how busy a director and producer are by themselves, imagine one person having to do all those jobs. You can't blame the person for doing this, it's the nature of the beast with budgets like this. Instead, a DP has to enter the project with an understanding what the producer/director is dealing with. Your best bet is to put your ego aside and help this person get what they need; at the end of the day, you want to walk away from this kind of project has the person who helped rather than demanded higher budgeted expectations. Experience Level Across the board, everyone will most likely have less (if not far less) experience than the DP, especially the director. I believe it's best to manage expectations for yourself and the director; you won't be able to get Hollywood quality set-ups because of the lack of crew, location, equipment, etc. Prep period becomes the most important part of a budgeted film like this and having a thoroughly made look book can help manage expectations on the look of the film. The DP should make it clear that prep is essential, and to have the initiative to use prep time. You won't get paid for prep, but how often do we get paid for full prep even on higher budgeted projects? ;) I love that David shared Upstream Color; it's one of my favorite films of all time and was an artistic achievement. It was beautifully shot and worked with its limitations rather than against it because of (I would assume) a good use of prep time. Recently, I shot a $50k feature in Illinois. The director was also the producer, but he managed to secure many if not all of our locations for free and most of the cast donated their time to the project. The key to success of this film was the understanding of the limitations of the budget early on in prep. The director re-worked the script to have simpler locations and simpler action. We agreed in prep to shoot the film in a very straight forward way (WS, OTS, OTS for roughly every scene) and made all of our days (8 total). Sure, we averaged 12-13 pages a day, but we discussed in prep that block shooting our scenes would optimize our time on set (and it did). Crew At budget levels like $30k or similar, you'll be lucky to have crew. And if you do get a crew, it'll most likely be their first time on set. For films at this size, your cinematography becomes dependent on your management skills and less on your artistic skills. Creatively getting what you need with the tools and labor you have separates the children from the adults; it'd be nice to do a big lighting set up, but can you actually manage a novice crew through such a set-up? If the budget does allow for more experienced crew members at a relatively decent rate (per say $175/day), you'll still have the risk of losing them once a higher paying gig comes around. Another feature I did had seven different 1st's because the rate was $175/day. Each one of them got a higher paying gig and left the project. At that rate, you'll have to rely more and more on your management skills of labor because the essential portion of your camera team keeps changing! End Delivery Format Whenever I'm offered to shoot a feature of this size, I always ask in the interview what their intended distribution will be. The Illinois feature, for example, wanted to release directly on the web. Knowing what your final product will be will not only help you decide the camera/resolution, but it will help you decide on the type of lighting you will need to do, the types of compositions, etc. Furthermore, you'll know what to expect for the post-production pipe-line. Will there be a colorist? Will the DP have to color the film? Will they even do a color grade? It would be nice to shoot RED Raw, but keeping management in mind, will you be able to download the media yourself in the inevitability of no DIT? Will you trust the editor to use that LUT you created? Maybe a DSLR will be more manageable for a one-man-band crew instead of an Alexa? I recommend working yourself backwards from the final product and know precisely what the expectations from the director and producer will be. From there you'll be able to more accurately decide on what equipment and crew you will really need. Inexperienced Actors You'll be lucky to get anyone who is a full time professional actor with budgets like this. Your best bet is to have decent coverage of every scene; allowing lines to be fed off camera and a way to cut around awkward performances that will save the film. The coverage will feel very plain, but no one will notice great photography if the performances are lousy. A master shot will be your best friend, but you'll only need two takes at most. The coverage will save the day and you want, in my experience, as many takes as the director needs. With that in mind, lighting your coverage should be quick to maximize the amount of takes. Plan accordingly and expect that there will be no perfect take, but perfect moments from many takes. Sound Your sound guy/gal will probably be as equally experienced as you, but they'll be severely understaffed. They'll be used to it, but they'll also be moving slower. Furthermore, the director will most likely want lavs on all of the actors plus a boom, but there won't be enough lavs, so changing them will eat up more time. Talk to sound at the beginning of the day on the plan of coverage and see if it needs to be rearranged for lav placement/replacement. It's not quick to change lavs. You'll most likely NOT have a script supervisor as well, which compounds on the complexity of sound: keep an eye on those packs and constantly stay in touch with the sound guy/gal on frame lines, blocking, etc. Sound often gets rushed on these budget levels and helping them out as much as possible will help YOU out more than you think. Finally, a scratch track will go a long way in post production; the built in mics on DSLR's are shitty, but good enough for a scratch. Plus, you'll be able to do playback on set much easier, and trust me, the director will want playback often. No sound on playback will add to the frustrations of an already stressed director/producer. Data Management I can't sugar coat this, you'll most likely be doing the data management. Downloading (video and audio), backing up, and checking footage will be your job as the DP. If you have a 1st AC, then maybe they can do it, but the reality is you'll still most likely be the one doing it. With your own laptop too. Furthermore, you'll have to advise production on what size of hard drives, how many, and you'll have to reach out to the editor (if there is one yet) on the organization and desired codec. You can put your foot down to a certain degree on what you can do, but the reality is that you will have to download, back up, and check that footage. Final Thoughts Be a team player. Movies at this budget level aren't about you, they're about the finished product. Check your ego at the door and help this production be a success. Don't produce, but don't demand. Get an understanding of where they are in terms of prep and lend advice when asked, but never try to help produce. It's not your movie. You may get some good reel footage, hell even a decent scene, but your reward for a project like this is a great review from the director. Make them happy and you'll have an excellent reference on your resume for a completed feature with a satisfied director/producer. I hope I didn't blab for too much! I just wanted to chip in my experiences shooting low budget features like the original post was mentioning. Again, I HIGHLY recommend everyone to watch Upstream Color. It's definitely weird, but beautiful and inspiring.

Ohhhhh, that makes a lot of sense now. haha Well, difficult actors is a whole nother level. If they lack the professionalism to work with the director, then you may have to pick your battles.

Are you doing high-speed? Do you want to use hard light or soft light? What ISO/T-Stop are you hoping to shoot at? From the looks of it, you have the right lights, but you made need a lot of grip gear and stands to shape the light like the reference photo. Women usually look good in hard light with a butterfly/paramount lighting pattern (see below photo). I recommend keeping your subject from the walls and having a quick drop off with your lighting (see inverse square law for lighting; basically, keep your heads closer to the subject). This will prevent your key light from hitting the back wall which allows you to use different lights entirely for the background.