Will Barber

I totally understand. If I could, I'd shoot all my projects exclusively on film. However, that requires a lot more crew and money. At least here at school, we use Arri SR3s, which means you need at least a 3 man camera department, including an AC that actually knows how to load and pull focus without a monitor. I've only been on one actual 16mm shoot, and sadly it's hard to get a crew together that is experienced enough to pull it off. On that shoot, I served on-and-off as 1st AC, 2nd AC, gaffer, and somewhat of a DP (responsible for lighting, but not shot choice or framing or operating). At one point, I was running lenses, helping set lights, and meter all at once. Not really ideal, which makes 16mm a real pain in the ass for me personally. Props for being in the position to be able to pull off that kind of shoot consistently. If you're looking for simplicity in a digital cinema camera though, you'll find it in the original Blackmagic. I've heard one DP relate it to the experience of shooting film because of the limited options in the menu. Personally, the limited options aren't a setback to me and I enjoy it for the same reason. When you take away all the finicky settings, you're left with the basic controls. ISO, WB, Shutter Angle. I don't like using electronic lenses (I may use older manual Nikon glass and Zeiss S16 primes for the short I'm shooting on the BMPCC), so my aperture control is usually on the lens. Taking away the menu options makes you think a lot more about how you're lighting the scene, just like film. Shooting on film taught me how to light without looking at an LCD screen. I really think there's only a few modern technologies besides the digital sensor that actually improve HOW you shoot, those being focus peaking and zebra, sometimes waveform, though I rarely use that as I prefer to use a light meter to read my exposure. Also, I believe the BMPCC rents for $99 for a 3 day weekend, it might be cool to put it side by side with the Bolex for a shoot, even a few shots, and see how it stacks up. You may want to look at old PL mount lens rentals. I haven't done any tests with them yet, but I know a 10mm bolex c-mount lens will vignette on the BMPCC, but I expect that the 9.5mm Zeiss will cover the sensor. Putting the Aspheron on as well might be a bit of overkill though.

Because using a camera as it's meant to be used is better than using a hack. Once on a shoot I was producing we lost all our BTS photos because the card our guy was shooting to had 5D RAW video on it, and apparently the card doesn't like that and corrupted. I know that's not typical when using the 5D as your A-Cam, but I've never been a fan of ML RAW and that was basically what sealed the deal for me personally. For slightly more than you'd spend to rent a 5D, you could get a BMCC. Or for even less, you could get the BMPCC with the new Speedbooster and use Nikon glass with a crop factor just about equal to Super35mm. EDIT: I personally wouldn't go with the Digital Bolex. It's overpriced for what it is, and I think you'd be selling yourself short. It was a few months too late to the party and about $2k too much. BMPCC has pretty much taken the spot where it was supposed to live in the market.

Along with what David said, consider a little haze in the air, or using a filter that replicates that. Nothing says morning to me in a film like some dust in the air catching the sunrays.

10mm Bolex lens, though that leaves some to be desired in sharpness and vignettes a little. Try the new Metabones Speedbooster. It takes the effective crop factor to ~1.7, so approximately APS-C or Super 35mm. It adapts to Nikon lenses, I tested it with a vintage one and it was spectacular. Give you over a stop more light, and we were shooting at 400ISO and f/3.5 (plus the extra light from the booster) using a single lightbulb in the center of a room. I'm assuming adapting it further would be possible using something that'll adapt your current lenses to Nikon.

No reel yet, because I don't even have all the finished versions of things I've done, but could anyone take a quick look at my resume I recently made, and offer any advice to spruce it up a little? (or if you're feeling generous, point me towards some good internship opportunities) :) Thanks! resume1.pdf

Figure out some way to get a light through the window for a wide, and fake it for the closeups. I've shot in a room at night with nothing more than a 300w Mole bouncing off a blue blanket I had in my Jeep. I think with the blind thing you may be backing yourself into a corner that is hard to get out of. Without proper rigging, shooting on a second story is difficult. I've put a 650 fresnel on a C-stand arm on top of a combo stand and it still was barely tall enough to get to a second story. One option is to buy a long pole and secure the light to it. Then pound a stake in the ground, strap the light to it, and run a couple safety chains to the ground. With a limited kit it's tough to get tricky shots like this, but you definitely have enough lights to light it from the inside if you had to.

I shoot college hockey, and it's really hard to shoot without a lens with a motorized zoom like an ENG camera. However, I have shot soccer with a normal camcorder before, so it's possible, though autofocus really helps out. For the 60D, you're gonna want a zoom similar to the 70-200mm f/2.8. The f/4 version may even be enough depending on the lighting, but that's something you might wanna check out beforehand. Just shoot at the fastest ISO you can without any noise, which on the 60D should be 800 or maybe 1600 because it's not low light, and stop down to at least a 4 if not a 5.6. However, with no zoom or focus control outside the lens I can only see it being a problem. There are tools made for situations like these, and it's really hard to do the job without those specific tools.

You could always have the actor crouch a little. You could also use a slightly longer lens, and stand further back from the actor. This will induce a little more lens shake, but it will give you a better angle of attack so you aren't pointed as far up in relation to the actor.

I don't allow my director to touch the camera. Then again, the one I work with the most is my best friend and we have an amazing working relationship. My trump card is that the last time he tried to do my job, we ended up with shaky, out of focus handheld. One of the reasons we speculated that Primer wasn't better is that Shane Carruth tried to do too much. Doing too many jobs can be taxing, but if you can't find anyone to do it better you might as well do it yourself. Of course, a lot of my opinion stems from having really no ambition to direct, so as a DP I want to do my job 100% and be able to communicate the director's vision effectively, rather than have the director doing it for me.