AJ Young

What baseline exposure are you hoping to get? (IE: 800ISO at T2.8?) Because of the higher sensitivity, you may be able to get away with a lot of natural light for most of the location and supplementing with HMI's where needed. However, the light will not be consistent, so approaching it like David suggested will be better for continuity. I would discuss the basic blocking with your director to help guide you in deciding where you want to place your lighting. Depending on how much money your production is investing into the day(s) on this location, having an overhead of the blocking will help you plan accordingly. In general, follow David's recommendation of HMI's. If you can't afford a condor, but can afford the 18k, then try bouncing in the light with a 10x or 20x ultra bounce. It'll soften and spread the light into the church, but will cut it down a lot too.

Usually, a system independent of the rods helps, but it depends on your lenses. For example, Cooke's always have the focus and iris gears in the same position from lens to lens. (IE: You have a 50mm on and swap to a 25mm, the FF focus gear doesn't need to move on the rods to compensate). In this case, a rod based handle and pad system will work just fine. (I recently used ARRI Rosette based grips that connected to a 15mm rod base with a 15mm rod based cushion on the back side). One of the best situations is to use two dovetails; one on the tripod and one on the handheld rig. The handheld rig should have it's own rod system that only holds the handles and cushion with a dovetail ontop. With this system, you can take the camera off the tripod dovetail and attach it to the handheld dovetail. This keeps the camera body rod system independent from the shoulder rig rods. For the handles, rosette based systems have worked great for me. They can hold a lot of weight and never slip. A key factor with handheld is balancing the camera on your shoulder. Too front heavy and you'll be exhausted in the first two hours. The Scarlet, in particular, becomes front heavy quickly with cinema lenses such as Cooke's or Ultra Primes. A dovetail on the shoulder rig will help slide the camera to the most balanced position. Be sure to have a longer than normal EVF/BNC cable for your onboard monitor/EVF; the mattebox will most likely be at your eyes rather than the camera body. I hope this isn't too confusing!

As a director, you ultimately know what you want and how you want to use it in the edit. Nonetheless, a director has a team of department heads who specialize in specific aspects of production/post. When a key offers a suggestion, it's usually coming from experience of what has or hasn't worked before. (not to say I'm commenting on your experience) Again, ultimately it's your decision on whether or not you'll use the suggestions, but depending on your relationship with a depo-head, those suggestions should most likely be applied. Simple things like getting ADR of someone breathing are little battles that don't need fighting. Micro-managing your departments creates friction and is mostly futile. One wouldn't micro-manage the DP on the contrast ratios of a scene, why would one micro-manage what the post sound mixer will be using down to the sound of a breath? Is it fair for the director of say, "No, we don't need to record room tone."? At the end of the day, if you're the executive producer (or producer/director), then you shouldn't be arguing with any crew member on what you want. However, as only a director, you should focus on decisions that define the bigger picture. In your case, the ADR session has already been scheduled for more than recording breathing (I'm assuming), so why not get it while you're there doing lines? The best mentality is to "have it and not need it" rather then "needing it and not having it". My best suggestion is to avoid micro-managing as a director. Fight for the bigger things and let your team focus on the details they've specialized in.

Awesome! This class looks insanely fun and is a brilliant idea. Thank you for sharing your experience!

Lucky for us, the A7RII still records 4K UHD in crop mode! :) I believe that's a generalization of post production processes. Sure, some post houses may only require 10bit blah blah blah, but that may only be for a certain subset of the industry. I recently shot for Lexus (hired by Chris Fata) and they were just fine with us shooting on 5D's. Furthermore, Act of Valor was primarily shot on the 5D's. You can read about it on Shane Hurlbut's blog (he shot it). Yes, but there is already a general misconception between the entire world about what the definition of 4K is. You should contact Art Adams. He shoots a lot with Sony and easily gets those cameras to match other cameras. Very talented DP. I recently wrapped a film in Oregon that I shot on the FS7; I'll go through the dailies and post them here for you. In the meantime, you should check out this article (another great one by Art Adams) discussing how the highlights on Sony cameras have improved. I personally haven't tested the A7RII, so I can't vouch for its highlight detail. However, a general assumption that highlights are rendered terribly on Sony sensors is unnecessary. That's what I'm saying, though. The E-mount allows one to have any glass, not Sony E-Mount glass. A DP could certainly still purchase PL based lenses and use them on the A7s/RII. That very well may be the case, but until Sony announces (or hints) anything, it's purely speculation. CinemaDNG isn't an industry standard format (even though it tried to be); it's just as proprietary as all the other manufacturers. Arri doesn't use it, neither does RED, Canon, or Sony. One can certainly take the RAW information from those cameras and put them into CinemaDNG, but it doesn't mean that format is the best. The only real industry standard is ACES. I'm still trying to grasp the system, but that's the direction manufacturers are heading towards. The A7s/RII meets that criteria and will suit Jesse just fine. If he needs anything more powerful, he'll be better off renting.

When you shoot in crop mode with either the A7s or A7RII, the rolling shutter is significantly reduced. (See Phillip Bloom's test with the A7s). I'm not sure resolution has anything to do with it; the camera reads the full sensor and then down samples to 1080. The Cinema5D test is a notorious example of charts vs. real life. The rolling shutter is a different story when actually shooting with these cameras, especially in crop mode. You barely notice they "jello" effect and can only find it if one is really looking for it. That may be true, but there are vastly more speed booster options available for the E-mount because of its very short focal flange distance. M4/3 has a good range too, but the E-mount paired with a speed booster Ultra allows for nearly full use of a full frame lens on a super 35 sensor size (aka, the crop mode on the A7s/RII). 8 Bit gets a lot of slack, but it's still a decent bit depth. There can be banding in the shadows sometimes, but it's generally good for most cases (even color grading). There have been tons of shows and movies that have been and continue to be shot on cameras with 8 bit depth. Act of Valor, entire episodes of House, Like Crazy, Mad Max Fury Road, etc. Bit depth is no reason to rule out a camera. The difference between 4K and UHD is 256 pixels. That's not even noticable, and UHD is 1.78:1 (16x9). Most of the time, you're cropping the "True" 4K signal to meet either the 1.85:1 or 16x9 aspect ratios, wasting information recorded. The color science is different, but Slog actually matches up to Clog to pretty well. Sony even released a LUT call Rec709-TypeA, the "A" standing for Alexa. (See Art Adams) The A7s and A7RII match up pretty well with the higher end cinema cameras, especially Sony ones like the F65 and F55. Sony cameras no longer suffer from the highlight clipping you speak of. Art Adam has done extensive tests with Sony's line of cameras and they all have much better highlight roll off. (Hell, even the one's used on Attack of the Clones roll off well). I've shot on the F5, F55, FS7, and A7s. None of them clip highlights, they roll off. Again, the rolling shutter is barely noticeable, especially in crop mode. There's no need to do any additional correction beyond what other DSLR's (like the 5DIII) will need, if needed. Sony's E-Mount is the most versatile mount of all DSLR's because of its short focal flange distance. You can literally mount any lens to the A7s/RII or FS7/700 because of the E-mount. Sure, you'll need an adapter, but they're a dime a dozen. The added benefit of the E-mount is a wide range of speed boosters like I mentioned before; much more of a range than any other mount combined. I'm not sure a camera that records 10 bit uncompressed internally with a 4:4:4 chroma sample at the price of a A7RII anytime soon from Sony, or any other camera manufacturer for that matter. (Yes Black Magic has cameras that do that, but they're strength in recording is outweighed by the camera's weaknesses in other more vital areas). An investment into a DSLR is a good idea; it serves multiple purposes than just video. Yes a new camera comes out that is better and cheaper, but a DP needs a camera now. I still have my 5DII and use it on shoots to this day. We think a camera gets replaced, but really a new camera is just a new tool in the market. If you have a hammer, and it works, there's no reason to buy a new hammer.

With that budget, I would recommend the A7RII or A7s. They're rolling shutters are quite noticeable, but not much more than any other DSLR. (Though the 5DIII's rolling shutter is less noticable). The plus with those two cameras I mentioned are the ability to use Metabones speed boosters on them. They both have great dynamic range and can do 4K with at 4:2:2 (externally of course). They also have 60p and the A7RII does 120p/240p (at 720 resolution, though). The body alone will nearly max out your budget, but this kind of investment will be worth it in the long run; you'll have a great camera that can suitably act as a B cam to higher end cameras. Plus, it's a rockin' stills camera (nearly unanimous reviews in the photography community).

I believe it comes natively with DaVinci on Windows as an export option. Avid does provide a C++ library for free; if one is savvy enough with compiling code, they could easily add the codec to their system. Additionally, there are various version of the codec floating around the web for free; most are up to date.

I did look there; from what I could find it's not a DaVinci issue, but Windows. ProRes will work like a normal codec on a Mac OS, but Apple doesn't supply a version for Windows that works the same way. (It'll work inside Quicktime, but not for other programs). I could only find independent software that supplies ProRes codec that behaves like other codecs for Windows, but they're all at a price. That's a shame, though! I was excited when you mentioned a ProRes codec for free on Windows. At least DNxHD works for now! :)

I've tried that one; it unfortunately only allows one to view a ProRes file in Quicktime, but not use the codec in DaVinci or any editing program on Windows.

Where can I find a ProRes codec for free on Windows? DNxHD is free and cross platform, but I haven't been able to find a free ProRes for Windows.

The term progress gives the assumption that the new version is better. I shouldn't have confused the term with my analogy for the changing environment of cinema. I would like to clarify on how I am using the term for my earlier post. Human progress means the shifting nature of the main source of catharsis for the individual. In the case of cinema, audiences are progressing into an internet based consumption, evident with the popularity of streaming services. I also would like to clarify my comparisons to different story telling methods. Suggesting campfires, bedrooms, and classrooms are still prevalent and important aspects of storytelling we use to this day. I'm not trying to guess what it was like back then, I was referring to what storytelling around a campfire is today.

I think Aiden and Simon hit points showing the importance of how audiences connect with cinema; each in their own unique ways. Human progress could be defined on how people experience the catharsis from storytelling. There isn't one way to view a film, just as much as there isn't one way to listen to a story (campfire? bedroom? classroom?) Stanley Kubrick loved commercials because they could tell a story in 30 seconds. Even AMPAS is recognizing the new mediums of story telling; they recently did a seminar showcasing the work of Buzzfeed, Vinestars, and new media creators. (Source) Filmmakers can't stop the progress of technology; it's going to happen whether we like it or not. What we can do is adapt to and embrace our new environment. The window of opportunity to show our work hasn't passed, it's only changed.

With poor man's process and a green screen, gelling your key lights and gag lights with sodium vapor colors would help key the subjects better because of the contrasting colors. (Providing you don't balance your color temp to make the light white) The tricky part is to determine how fast to have the gag lights move in conjunction with your plate shot. And how to move them. What have you and your team devised if you do a stage?

I agree with John. Films are becoming more like music; of course The Beatles would love your full attention when you listen to Sgt. Pepper, but audiences don't work that way. The simple fact that someone wants to see my work, even if it's playing in the background while they're vacuuming, is an honor to me. Even great filmmakers do this (Tarantino worked at a Blockbuster in the 80/90's!). Cinema is based on how the audience wants to experience the film, not what you require them.

I don't believe cinema is defined by the theatre, but by how a viewer wants to experience it. Home theatre enthusiasts are proud of their set ups. Declining attendance to movie theatres, cable subscriptions, and DVD/Blu ray sales are a clear indicator of the demand for VOD. As a DP, and filmmaker, you can no longer control where, when, and how someone views your work (but this really isn't new, movie theatres are notorious for having inconsistent quality). Jayson Crothers brings a factory set consumer TV with him to color grade, regardless if it's a theatrical release or not. I personally review my color sessions at home on my iPhone to make sure it holds up. As a viewer, VOD is all I could ask for! Richard made a great point about how much theatres take monetarily and how little a customer gets back in return. Everything a movie theatre can offer, an average american has at home. Comfy chair? Check. 5.1 surround sound? Check. 2k (minus 128 pixels)? Check. Eventually, consumers will have 4k TV's! Most of the quality we want as cinematographers is unnoticed by consumers. Hell, a lot of them love the smooth motion setting on TV's. At the end of the day, cinema is defined by how the viewer wants to experience your work. It's like a restaurant. As a chef, your meal is best eaten and enjoyed in the proper order, with proper wine, and proper setting. However, you can't ignore take out orders! Not just because it's good business, but because people are at least eating your food. Restaurant or not. On another note: In theory, piracy can be combated much better through VOD through two methods: tracking and availability. A distributor can accurately track who is downloading the movie and visually tag the movie exactly how they did with prints. When a pirated copy comes up on the numerous torrents, the distributors can then look for the visual tag that is directly tied to the purchaser of the original download. Secondly, availability is the key point in combating piracy. Spotify has done wonders to combat piracy by simply making music available (albiet for free). Fortune, Forbes, and Telegraph have reported studies showing the decline in piracy for music. I'm optimistic that Spotify is the cause, but declining piracy and growing popularity of Spotify is only correlation, which never means causation. In any case, making content more available to consumers reduces the incentive to pirate. Furthermore, VOD allows to more directly track who is watching and downloading the movies which allows them to track what they do with the movie afterwards. I don't think this is the end of cinema as we know it. I believe it's actually quite exciting. DP's have, and most likely never will, control what viewers want to see and how they want to see their work. But we can at least be happy that people are seeing our work.

Another common trick with day-for-night in post is de-saturating the image and then adding a little blue to the now gray image. Like David said, power windows can be your best friend as well. I recommend shooting a test and playing around with that footage so you know what to expect when on set and in the color session.

Most of the higher end films do a considerable amount of testing before they shoot. Budget is always a consideration, even at that level, but those cinematographers are trying to find the camera that best suits the needs of the story, post-production, and eventually production. The Alexa is the most common choice on higher end films mostly because it fits specific needs for those projects. However, the Alexa isn't the end all best camera. Hurlburt shot Need for Speed on C500's; Libatique shot Black Swan on 16mm! It all boils down to testing and finding the right camera for the right project.

Ah, that clears it up very well. Thank you, guys!

I am confused with inverse square law and diffusion material. Do you calculate the intensity of light falling off over distance from the head or from the diffusion? I love key lights with a "creamy" softness to them as well as being the subjects eye light. (Of course, there are numerous situations where I just can't do that style of lighting) Additionally, to sell the creaminess of the key light, I always try to have the eye light fade away from one side to another. (an example from Dearest Jane, a feature I shot in August 2013) The above shot was lit with a Tweenie through a 4x4 cut of quiet grid. It was directly off frame right (and I think I had some 251 on the head for additional spread onto the cloth and to cut some intensity). I used to keep my diffusion as close to my subjects as possible and pull my head back so I can get that fading eye light effect as well as to maximize softness. I've learned the hard way that stacking lights and diffusion right outside of frame limits frame mobility and actor mobility severely. A very bad (and rude) thing for a DP to do! Today, I typically use a strong source (such as a 1.2 HMI) shot through a large frame of diffusion (such as an 8-by or 10-by) at a substantially far distance away. However, set ups of that size require a large amount of space. I've recently been shooting on cameras with higher native ISO's (such as the F5). I've started to move back to the above lighting set up I did above, but want to maximize my use of the inverse square law. There are some situations where I can actually bring my diffusion material very close to the subject and still allow them to move freely and only gaining/losing a quarter of a stop. However, do you start calculating the inverse square law from the lamp or the diffusion material?

I don't think the price of your camera package means the quality of your production or cinematography. Too many filmmakers and cinematographers today are concerned with the equipment rather than story, production design, and performances (which, throughout history, have always been top priority). The only line to draw is which camera is perfect for the project. To quote Radium Cheung, HKSC, on shooting Tangerines, "The decision to shoot with a couple of mobile phones turned out to be one of the greatest assets to the film." (Indiewire) Sean baker chose to shoot on iPhones as an artistic decision, not budgetary or lazieness. In fact, he's not the first person to shoot on "crappy" mediums. Look at the Dogma 95 films or 28 Days Later. I think we use the quality of cinema cameras now as a crutch; we're getting spoiled with how good they are. For myself, personally, I would shoot a film on anything as long as it serves the needs of the project. Even an iPhone.

It's not a bad idea to own a DSLR as a DP. It's not expensive and can be used for very small projects. The 5D is a good old classic, but the newer DSLR's are equally good and better. I would recommend full frame over any smaller sensor; photography lenses work with no crop factor on them. A DSLR can be helpful with visualization on tech scouts (or the actual shoot if you don't mind carrying a DSLR around). They're also great B-cams or crash cams.

David is right in avoiding owning gear. It's more difficult these days because of how cheap digital cameras are. LA, in particular, has an over abundance of RED cameras that owner/operator DP's almost always rent for way below market value; just to get the job. In essence, they're giving their camera package to the film for free or their giving themselves to the film for free. Low end level producers today are looking for DP's who own big budget cameras and will only want to pay the DP his/her rate (for example, $500 a day) and expect the camera to come for free. It's a side effect of "cheaper" technology. A complete RED or Alexa package is quite expensive; getting a decent return on your investment is almost impossible. One thing to keep in mind about productions looking for DP's with cameras is that they actually don't want a DP, but their camera. If they want to cheap out on their camera package, what else will they cheap out on? I've found it increasingly hard to get work as a DP who doesn't own gear, but it's not impossible. It takes a strong hustle, frugal personal budget, and a pound of luck. Film schools today often set up expectations for students. They expect a full crewed film with top notch equipment. Sadly, starting out is never the case. Most micro budget films would be lucky to use anything more expensive than a DSLR (if they're paying crew properly, have insurance, decent catering, etc). You can't blame lack of equipment or crew as lack of quality in your work. A DP has to adapt to their situation, not adapt their situation to their expectations. (Look at Anthony Dodd Mantle, DFF, ASC, BSC for example) The best thing to do is shoot, and shoot a lot. The only way a DP becomes a DP is by shooting. Yes you can climb the ladder, it happens. But if you never shoot, you'll never be hired as a DP. Producers hire DP's, not DP's. Of course, DP's will put a good word in for you, but you can't wait for someone to give you the green light. You have to shoot.

I hope I can give some thoughts on theatrical exhibition here (and hopefully get this topic back on track). I was a projectionist for 6 years (2006 - 2012) at Harkins Theatres. I've built, shown, and broken down thousands of miles of film. David was right in stating the importance of the type of print used. Harkins was based in AZ, so most of our prints delivered were interpositives or internegs. From a practical standpoint, projecting film was archaic. We had to keep our booths at a specific temperature and humidity to prevent static electricity from causing the film to "brain wrap" around the central unit of the platter system. (Of course, brain wraps would happen anyways) We had to re-thread movies after each showing! (It may seem fun at first, but trust me, it got tedious quick) Any accidents or damages to the print are inevitable because of the film projection process. Now matter how well we cleaned a projector between each show, a film will eventually scratch or be damaged in some other way. Damaged sections often became so unusable that we had to cut them out from the print; a difficult process to do and worse for the audience to witness once it played through. A film projector can not be re-wound, so any missed seconds or minutes will be unseen by the audience, a worse crime than "showing on digital". Furthermore, digital sound was dependent on the print still; if the dolby tracks between the sprockets are damage, then the system will use the next lower quality sound on the print (usually stereo "analog"). Harkins was the first major theatre chain to fully convert to digital (2011). We had digital projectors before then (we replaced 4 our of them with digital for Avatar) and had been testing various kinds. For picture quality and economic reasons, the company went with Christie projectors and GDC servers. From a practical standpoint, we could ensure a perfect viewing experience for our audience. Though a "rewind" feature may seem silly, it helps ensure the entire work of a filmmaker is shown. This idea of truer blacks in film projection is arbitrary. We've ignored the how the screen reflects versus how the black cloth reflects. Cinema screens are designed to reflect all light (that's their job). Of course, when a frame goes dark, the screen will still be slightly illuminated. No amount of emulsion can block 100% of the light (that's what a dowser/shutter, solid piece of metal, is for, not thin gelatin with silver crystals mixed in). Even when I had the dowser up, the white/beige/silver screen still reflected more light than a black cloth. How dark the blacks are in a projection are dependent on how bright the projector is, how far it reaches, and how big the screen is. These variables change considerably from screen to screen, building to building, and company to company. Digital projection has been a step in the right direction for better image quality and control at the exhibition level. There is still a big debate about bulb brightness between theatre chains, but nonetheless a better and consistent image than film. Digital projection ensures the movie looks closer to what the filmmaker wanted than film. I loved building film, showing it, and working with it. However, it's time to move on from this silly debate on film v digital. The point of cinema is for audiences to watch a movie; not drive hours and hours to the one movie theatre that shows the movie on film because the filmmaker is too proud to show it in any other medium. With that being said, David's point on researching your local theatre never changes. Your local theatre has anti-aliasing frames? Looks like they cheaped out on their projector, installation, or projectionists. Do your research and find the theatre that suits you best.

You could also ND the windows considerably (with ND gels of course) and create the indoor exposure with your key and fill lights. Instead of fighting the outdoor exposure, make it the exposure you want.