Logan Schneider

I'm not saying that this is necessarily true for RED, but it's not unheard of by any means. I just meant to say that in the manufacturing of film equipment, the financial return can often come from unexpected sectors. If you can make money off of the actual camera body then fantastic, but it by no means is the decisive factor in becoming profitable for many companies. I'm sure that RED has a very thought out business model. It will be interesting to see how the other camera companies adapt to RED's introduction.

That looks like the Lev Head on the Ultimate Arm

I own an Arri SR3 and have no problem saying that the Aaton XTRprod is one of the best cameras ever built. Aatons are reliable, quiet, comfortable on the shoulder and are responsible for countless beautiful images. Do you have a reason for your tearing down a well respected camera manufacturer?

As I understand it, most camera manufacturers make the majority of their money on accessories, and often lose money on the actual camera. It's a proven model, and is much like computers and software.

It would be nice if the 4K resolution of RED serves to push film imaging further along with it. The 65mm "As Good as it Gets" screening that Bill Bennett did was amazing. The thing that blew me away the most was a 4K screening of a restored 65mm print of "The Sound of Music". It is 42 years old, and it blew away anything I have ever seen, digital OR film. I saw "Crossing the Line" the very next day, and considering the fact that I had just watched so much 65mm, it still held up well. The grainless and detailed feeling was very similar. However, I am really looking forward to see how far RED can be pushed in the studio and in exteriors. Good luck shooting 65mm Max. We should all be so lucky. Jim, while you're here, is there any word on when overcranking will be implemented? I don't suppose you guys are considering having Lens Data System or Cooke iIntellegence lens system compatibility? It would be a nice option. I'm interested to see how the 18-50 does at it begins testing in the open market.

That is rather expensive, considering that the Optimo 15-40 is about $36,000. The Cooke is only $10000 less than the 24-290, and that is a LOT more glass.

Everyone calm down. Any real DP is going to choose the best camera for the job. Period. Red provides a rather amazing image at any price point. High five, Red. In many ways, however, film has the advantage. High five, film. By having another tool, everyone wins. Personally, I have not been as impressed by the images I have seen, but I think that has been a function of the photography, not the camera. I can't wait to see a DP make that camera sing. Soon there will be thousands of REDs and we will all be able to gauge and compare them. Until then I will be trotting around with my SR.

Great...another American film loses out to a Canadian export. Maybe one day Americans will be able to keep their films here with such ease? Not really kidding.

I appreciate you putting the picture up, whether or not it is great. I think I learn more from seeing that reading, even if I don't learn from every photo. Good luck with the rest of your shoot David.

I would definitely recommend the p2, especially if you are using 16gb cards. Having 80min of recording time and full 720p is pretty nice. Just make sure you have a good download workflow for the evening. I've had the HVX-200 in a lot of snowy, winter conditions, and it got wet plenty of times. I never had a problem. One of the nice things about not using tape is that you don't have to keep opening the camera up. No matter what you take, take 2 of them. It is the jungle after all. Unless it's an Arri S. (I had a friend drop one 50ft and go right on shooting).

I saw this happen last year with a BL4. The AC didn't know what it was and they lost a day and half of footage. Don't play guessing games. Send it back.

I may have missed you answering this, but are you able to post any stills?

I've been fortunate enough to visit quite a few DPs while they are working, and being a great DP does not at all imply that someone will be a great teacher. Doyle, while being a brilliant cinematographer, is a well known drunk and apparently hates to talk about the craft. That doesn't mean that he is a bad person, it just means that he might not be excited to tell you his printer lights. Many of the DPs mentioned here have similar, and much worse in other cases, attributes (I won't get into who). I will say that I saw Lubeski at the ASC open house patiently and engagingly talking to a gaggle of young filmmakers. I just want to make the point that if you are looking for a mentor it is not always the best choice to pick someone out of the credits of your favorite film. There are several brilliant teachers of cinematography that are known in the industry but are not necessarily as famous as the guys who shoot the big features. I'm not trying to take the fun out of this thread. In fact, just for fun I will throw in my pick: Roger Deakins. He is a brilliant DP and a very articulate and giving teacher (at least on his website, and I've never heard anything otherwise). As for David Mullin, we have all been fortunate enough to be taken on his sets through his postings. Thanks again.

Don't be afraid to keep it simple. It seems to me that the future-old effect is most important to do in production design, but to emphasize it you could put some very strong light in the back room and then use the glass door as motivated daylight. The side passage can have little highlights...or not. You could play it all naturalistic (lit with HMIs for continuity), but have a bare practical where the mirror is to add a raw feel to part of the image. Endless options...

"Perfume" was rather overlooked, especially considering the director, Tim Tykwer (Run Lola Run). I really was beautifully shot and brilliantly allowed the audience to experience the sense of smell visually.

I will second "In the Mood for Love". It has some of the most subtle, beautiful and poetic cinematography that I have ever seen. Even though many people did not like it, "Intolerable Cruelty", shot by Roger Deakins, ASC BSC has some of the most beautiful and glamorous Hollywood photography that I have seen. I'll try to think of less obvious movies.

I have never seen a 1st AC in anything but the front passenger seat on either the Ultimate Arm or the Russian Arm. It's pretty standard and shouldn't be a question.

On the jobs that I've been on with the Ultimate Arm, the 1st AC will always be in the front passenger seat and will be whipping his head around to keep track of the arm. At the same time he keeps on eye on the monitor when he can. He said it takes a little getting used to.

I really enjoyed the film. I didn't like Supremacy as much, and I feel like Greengrass's use of the handheld camera and tight lenses matured significantly between the films. In the second film I felt like I was just seeing things shaking for no real reason, but in the third film I felt like I was seeing the pieces and moments that Bourne saw, that things were moving so fast there was no time to slow down and get a wider shot. To me the camerawork felt like eyes darting about, ready to run, and that perfectly suited the film. I understand the shaky cam fatigue, but on this film it felt right to me. As for the idea of having subtle differences, there was a significant difference in the level of shaking between dialogue scenes and actions scenes. Just because it never slows down to the point of being on sticks doesn't mean it doesn't slow down.

I think you just need to use your judgement. I've worked for $200 or less on some projects, but I know that that is all they have. If I'm on a project that has a budget I will expect to get $400 or $500 for 10 or 12 hours. While starting out I would suggest finding out what you can about the project so that you can quote a good rate. I've had jobs where l have asked for a higher rate than normal just because I want them to respect me. In the end, I agree with the idea of quoting a little high and working down. However, most of the time the producers tell me what my rate is and it is not a negotiation.

A good start would be to look at "Girl with a Pearl Earring", shot by Eduardo Serra. His cinematography mimics the work of Vermeer, his subject. There are few examples that are that direct, but cinematographers have always studied the masters. Just listen to any interview by Vittorio Storaro. "This insert shot was influenced by 13th century Micronesian vase-work..."

It looked like a directors viewfinder using a small dv camera as a video tap, like a different version of the 'ultimate director's' viewfinder.

The waiting list for Ziess Masterprimes is about 1 year right now. Arricams are booked 3 months in advance or more. There really isn't that much top level equipment in existence. It will be interesting to see how scarce the glass will get, and whether the RED lenses will catch on.

There is a natural history filmmaking MFA in at Montana State University in Bozeman. I read that you are already doing an MFA, but it might be worth getting in touch with one of the professors. Phil Savoie is the cinematography teacher. You might want to get in touch with him and see if he can give you tips. His website is www.philsavoie.com. He also posts occasionally on CML.

I would get either an SR3 or an XTR Prod, but only if you can get good glass while you are getting it. The package that Nathan posted looks very nice (though you would probably need another magazine and you might want to upgrade to the 11-position shutter). The viewing system on the SR3 is much better than the SR2, and it has features such as ARRIglow and built in electronics for speed control as well as the 45 and 90 degree shutter option. Nathan's Prod will probably feel the best on your shoulder though. I was looking for a Prod when I found great deal on the SR3 that I bought. They are both great and they are both leaps ahead of the SR2.