Logan Schneider

It looks great. I think that you created some really nice contrast and subtle tones, which are hard to get with that camera. Did you keep flat settings on the camera and put the contrast in post to some degree, or did you try to get it in camera? Again, good work.

Yeah. He gave a short speech when he was given the award and then brought his operator on stage for the rest. This was right after the issues with union operators had come up so it was a great statement and an acknowledgment of the importance of the operator.

And he brought his operator on stage. Classy guy...

I don't think that the prices for top notch Super 16mm gear will drop significantly even if RED is a success right out of the gate. Maybe you'll be able to find SR1 and 2 and LTRs for cheaper, but if you have work coming, then the work should make up any difference that waiting for a price drop will provide. Because you are buying a camera PACKAGE, most of it won't lose value because you can keep using everything but the body when you decide to move on from film. I have all of the components that my camera needs that are specific to that camera. Except for maintenance, I probably will buy no more SR3 pieces. But when I do buy a RED or BLUE or BIEGE or whatever the next camera they come up with is called that I decide I would rather shoot with, I'll still have my Lenses, Matteboxes, follow focus, sticks, head, filters, etc. Film is future proof. Film cameras are not. Accessories are forever, like diamonds, except made of plastic in Germany. PS: Martin, if you are the only one using your camera, go for the Illuminas and best of luck. Probably no one will know the difference in the final product, and you'll be able to use them for years.

I haven't used the Illuminas, but I have heard good things. One thing to keep in mind is who you will be renting to. If the camera will be coming with you most of the time, it doesn't matter so much what you are shooting as long as it looks good to you. If you will be renting to other DPs it might be better to go with a set of Ziess Mark II superspeeds because of the name recognition and the fact that DPs know them and are comfortable with them. However, I do understand the price difference and the Illuminas have a lot to offer for their price.

Firstly, I believe that the safest investment right now is glass. I know that RED is coming out with lenses, but to get fast lenses with a good range, there are certain supply costs that cannot be avoided in terms of quality glass. Also, with all these people about to have PL mount cameras, they will be in short supply (they already are) and thus retain most if not all of their value. Secondly, I understand the desire for a newer, sexier camera. I have an SR3, and it gets much more respect than an SR2 or an XTR+. The video tap is better (great for clients), the variable shutter adds an whole different paintbrush to my arsenal. When it comes to Super16, that makes a difference. Also, having the speed control built in is a big plus. The only SR2 that I would want to use is the high speed or the P+S technic "SR 2.9". As for the Prod, it's a great camera and the xTerra upgrade is relatively affordable if you decide you need it. I think that if you think that it will push your work and reputation further then do it, but make sure that it is financially feasible. Make sure that you have good glass in the package though. In the end, all the camera features in the world won't help if your glass isn't good. Owning a camera has been very good for me, and though I understand the reservations stated here and in other posts, I wish you the best of luck if you decide to take the plunge. PS: Make sure you consider increased maintenance and insurance costs.

Back to the original topic, the SR3 can at least be outfitted with a Norris intervelometer w/capping shutter. I assume this does single frame, but I've never had to do it. You do need to take off the inching nob so that you can attach the motor. The folks at Otto Nemenz said that it's very easy to do.

Firstly, as an alumni of MSU, I have to mention that Bozeman is amazing. Film school is what you make of it. Not having all the ammenities of LA at your fingertips can teach you to be on your toes and creative. You learn to get things right the first time. I'd put MSU student work up against any other film school. Most of the MSU grads who have gone to LA are working right now. They are generally very well regarded because the film cirriculum is broad and thorough and thus they have depth, which is useful when you need someone to jump in and do sound when there's a noshow. More than anything, I think going to college in film is more about going to college than it is about film. It's about getting a broad education and learning how to explore the world from your own point of view. If you just want to get into filmmaking, get into filmmaking. Go to LA and get on Craigslist every day until something happens. If you want to be a broader human being and bring that to your film work in the long run, go to college and minor in english or business or history or something. There are many wonderful DPs who have gone both routes.

It's probably a very large frame moved in front of the light by a crane. The january 2007 (I think) issue of American Cinematographer contains a behind the scenes photo that shows them executing a similar effect.

wow. I just contradicted myself. Let me mention something about Lucas that I respect. he made some great movies at the start of his career, and I think his best move was knowing when to let someone else direct on The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. I just wish he had left my childhood alone.

It's funny that you should use George Lucas as an example. The Star Wars prequels destroyed a precious part of my childhood. I can't even watch the originals anymore and I love the originals. I think he is "silly". Did Lucas make more money than god from the prequels? Yes, but they are crap. The fact is that I make and watch movies. I have never shot a $100 million dollar feature, but I know a good film when I see one. I respect the special understanding that comes with having made your own feature. I've seen plenty of people fall apart trying to make a movie. However, we have to seperate our criticism of film from our respect for the big machine that makes the huge movies. I do think that people tend to go too far one way or the other. Going back to Michael Bay, he has done good work and also made terrible movies. Sometimes his best work is hidden in his worst movies. (I echo the inability to watch Pearl Harbor again). Try this. Instead of just saying that you like or don't like Bay's (or whomever else's) work, tell us what you do like or respect. What worked can often inform the viewer of the failures and vice versa. By the way, since the Dawn of the Dead remake was mentioned, does anyone know how Matt Leonetti got that look? I thought it was beautiful.

Until I saw the Island, I thought Michael Bay was ridiculous. I mean, Bad Boys 2? Mercy. I thought The Island was great. The fact is that Michael Bay is an extremely talented filmmaker. His understanding of camera movement is fantastic and deserves respect. Think back to The Rock. You may or may not like this movie, but it brought the movement of music videos and commercials into feature films in a new way. It was copied over and over. Unfortunately, between The Rock and The Island there were about ten years of...well...crap. Oil drillers on an asteroid? I'm ready to give him another chance. The Island failed to make money as a result of the inertia of crap that audiences had dealt with for so long, but I think Bay's switch of allegience from Bruckheimer to Spielberg is an important one and could mark the maturing of Bay into a director with more depth and the ability to really tell a good story and get good performances. And the truth is that even if he fails to make good films, he still pushes the envelope of camera movement with every film. I still hate most of his stuff.

I think having a camera assistant is a fundemental need on narrative work. Any money that you think you are saving you will lose in time. You will also lose a lot of money on out of focus takes. As for lenses, I would suggest primes. The quality is better. Also, the extra speed will save you time and look more like 35mm (assuming you have a focus puller). Good luck. Tell us how it goes.

Thanks for the comments. Believe me, there is equipment at the very edge of the frameline. Those china balls were as close as possible. Even with two china balls and rating at 400asa I was struggling for stop now and then.

"Why the decision to go with 2.35? I'm not so sure it fits the space and the subject very well." I chose 2:35 because I felt that it would allow me to have several characters in the frame without seeing too much. It also allowed slightly ackward framing for the boys close ups, adding to the uncomfortable feeling. "Did you ever consider filtering with something like a light grade of tobacco or straw? I probably would have filtered (or rather tested to see if my idea would work) with a light grade of tobacco and a very light grade of magenta to try and mimic old kodachrome home movies." I didn't feel that the use of an overt color filter would have been right. I wanted any nostalgia to be a little more subtle than that. That's what I think now. Maybe I just didn't feel like it then. Logan Schneider DP Bozeman, MT

Here is a commercial that I shot a while back. I thought I would throw it up here and see what people think. It was shot on my Arri SR3 with an Optex converted 12-120 Ziess and a Century 6mm wide angle lens. We decided to shoot 2:35, so I sent my ground glass to CSC New York where they taped off the frame lines (Arri came out with 2:35 SR3 GG this year at NAB). I used 7229 rated at 400asa. I wanted to have a desaturated palatte, but to keep decent contrast. I think it was somewhat successful. I went a little bit overboard with the Classic Softs on one or two shots, but in some ways they add a nice nostalgic feel to the piece, which was part of the goal. The primary lighting was two 15" paper lanterns hung over the table, which I moved and controlled with duvetyne to shape the light. I added kicks with 650w and 2Kw fresnels. I had some 200w peppers up on a wall spreader to put highlights in the kitchen. I lit the living room with practicals and kinos. I wanted the faces to have a smooth, almost porcelain feel, so I overexposed them by a stop in addition to rating the film at 400asa. The space was very tight, which necessitated the use of the 6mm. I tried to stick to the long end of the zoom in order to limit depth of field and imitate 35mm. I did this last year, so I've had time to reflect on it. I probably would have used 7218 if I did it again so that the blacks would be a bit more solid, and I would have used a lighter classic soft (I only had a 1/2 and a 1...ugh) but overall I think it turned out pretty well. Logan Schneider DP Bozeman, MT

The XTR Prod or the SR3 would be the best choice probably if you can afford them. The A-minima is known for being delicate and not especially reliable. I have never had a problem with the XTR prod or the SR3.

the FF4, with both knobs and a 15mm (or 19mm) baseplate rod adaptor comes to around $3000. It's a wonderful follow focus. It is much lighter and more useful than the FF3 for what I do. It ends up on my lightweight rods alot. What I can't understand is why Arri's new FF1 (designed by the Willytech people) is $5000, though it is the smoothest Follow Focus I've ever felt.

I thought that Collateral was a very good film. (I especially liked seeing Tom Cruise not play Tom Cruise) As for the look, while I was not a fan of the artifacting and pixelation in the film, I loved that it looked more like LA really looks like at night than anything else I have seen. It picked up the the glow of the light pollution and followed the streetlights much further into the shadows. Also, the lack of color approximated the human eye, which sees almost in black and white in low light. Perhaps Collateral would have been better on film, both aesthetically and storywise, but I think that it would have been a very ifferent film. I think that the final product was what he wanted it to be, and that's why it's a Michael Mann film and not someone else. As for Miami Vice, I will have to see. As with any Michael Mann film, I look forward to seeing it. I consider him one of the best directors working today, and I always expect a good product. Logan Schneider DP Bozeman, MT

I did much of the transcription of the interviews on Cinematographer Style, including the final two interviews with Vittorio Storaro and Gordon Willis (there will eventually be a book with the complete transcripts). Both interviews were about an hour and a half, and it was like getting a one on one masterclass in cinematography. Willis talked about what being a 'visual psychiatrist' and how, most of the time, problems are caused by adding too much instead of taking away. He also talked about the importance of the word 'no'. I hope everyone gets a chance to see the film, especially on the big screen. It was the first film to use the Arriscanner (which deserves it's own thread. it's amazing) and went through a 2K DI (downrezzed from 3K) at Goldcrest media with colorist John Dowdell III. I was fortunate enough to attend the premier at the Samual Goldwyn theater at the Academy, which most of the people attended thought had the best projection in the world. During test screenings, John went within two feet of the screen and still couldn't see any pixelation or artifacting. Anyway, I was sidetracked, but for anyone who wants to learn more about Willis, watch out for the book so that you can read the full transcript, not to mention the 109 other DPs (including David Mullen, who has a very good interview). When Jon Fauer got to Willis's house to shoot the interview, they had a huge truck with big lights so that they could light from outside becuase Willis didn't want any equipment in his house. Willis just told him to bring in one 4'x4 kino flo, and that's all they used. At one point he tells them to turn off the Kino and says, 'see, that's better'. Master of Darkness indeed... Logan Schneider DP Bozeman, MT

I'll be working at Jon Fauer's Film and Digital Times Booth. Last year it was right next to the ASC booth, so hopefully I will run into you guys. Logan Schneider

There are women DPs. Not many, but they are there, and their numbers are growing. Amy Vincent, ASC, Nancy Schrieber, ASC, and Ellen Kuras, ASC are all good examples. I have heard some women say that it has been easier to move forward as a woman because people want to see more women behind the camera now. I have a feeling it will just depend on how good you are, how hard you work, your attitude and luck. My only other advice is not to let yourself be defined by you being a woman. Let it be a part of you and move on. As a side note, after the incident in the other thread, can we please stop all jokes, even with smiley faces, about women being inferior. They are not funny, even when not serious. I have always heard that there is family, work and social life, and you can only really have two. It's just like the old saying about good, fast and cheap. Choose two. I think that you can be a good father or mother in this business, but it takes sacrifice and knowing what is most important. With films such as 'hustle and flow', 'eternal sunshine of the spotless mind' and others, women are proving that they can match any man as a DP. I wish you the best of luck. Logan Schneider DP Bozeman, MT

It seems unlikely that the lights are 3200k unless you replaced the bulb. If you want a kick (and it depends on if YOU want it. we can't help with that) I would find out what kind of bulbs are in the store and put them into a 4'x4 kino that you can you for fill or a kick. Logan Schneider DP Bozeman, MT

I talked to Dan Kneece about this. He pointed out that an operator only has to save 15 minutes a day to justify his position, which easily happens. It's going to be stupid low budget producers that take advantage of this, not realizing that it doesn't actually save money. It's going to be the same ones who thought that HD meant no lights. Logan Schneider DP Bozeman, MT

Somebody gave me the star wars issue, but I'm not selling. Anyway, I bought 1993 to 2004 for $250 on ebay last year, which also included a bunch of ICGs and Australian Cinematographers. Someone gave me a bunch of issues older than that. I think your price is a bit high. Maybe $1000. I might be interested if the price came down some, although I have a lot of the issues. I need the top gun issue. How did they shoot that volleyball scene...?