John E Clark

How isn't it? Im actually looking for an understanding of what is considered chiaroscuro in art

Chiaroscuro is 'light/shadow' or 'light/dark' and is used to create a 3-d effect, beyond simple perspective, as well as adding 'drama'. Your referenced image appears to be more of a silhouette than an example of chiaroscuro.

In the early modern era, painters developed 3-d perspective drawing, but in general the 'light' was often 'flat', without much contrast.

By the mid 1500s, for portraits, one finds heavier use of shadow to give a 3-d effect, when the portrait would not otherwise have significant 'perspective' to cue the 3-d effect.

For example, ca 1480s Memling Portrait

About 100 years later a Bronzino portrait ca. 1541

And another 100 years... 1660 Rembrandt

Thank you so much for the tips. In terms of trying to figure out dynamic range in the shadows I was in the mindset of thinking how many f-stops wider the lens could open too.

 

I just bought a light meter and learning how to use it. I see that it can calculate the EV difference which makes a lot more sense now.

The scene brightness values set the 'dynamic range of the scene'.

The F-stop setting of the lens will not change that range of values.

The sensor will limit how much of that dynamic range is transformed into usable electronic signals which are then digitized and recorded.

I just happened across this classification on US immigration visas... H-2B.

This classification seems to be usable potentially for those who are not 'stars' or 'superior' workers in the entertainment field. The text does not mention filmmaking, or artists in particular, just 'work'. There is a comparable 'agricultural' H-2A visa.

In any case, one still must have a sponsoring employer lined up, and that there are no 'unemployed but qualified' US workers in the area.

So, sign up for film production in Cheyenne Wyoming... or someplace like that...

The visa is a 'nonimmigrant' type, so at the end of up to a year it's back to the homeland, where ever that is... but who knows, one could have graduated to the "O-1" category in that year... or at least got a leg up...

Here's a blurb on the topic.

http://www.americanlaw.com/h-2b.html

In his interview on the American Cinematographer podcast, Crescenzo Notarile ASC says when he was shooting CSI that he would do his closeups from 40 feet away using 150mm to 250mm lenses (as opposed to Gotham where he uses 21mm to 32mm).

 

 

As mainly a stills photographer, I understand where he's going, most people look a lot better with longer lenses. However, the farthest I get from my still subjects is 10 or 15 feet. Forty feet away would be a whole other universe...

 

 

So, in cinematography is there an advantage to shooting with such long lenses besides the flattering look and change in subject-background relationship?

Does it change the actor's dynamic with the camera? What other benefits does it bestow?

Thanks

 

The Wife use to use a 100mm on a fullframefilm Nikon for her 'ideal' portrait lens. I presume for the cinematography example, using a somewhat standard frame format equivalent to 35mm 'movie' film, that a 150mm has a bit smaller Angle of View, than for the FF 35mm still.

With that in mind, 40 feet sounds reasonable for a 'shoulders up' shot.

In terms of the 'film language', how distant the camera is to the action does give a certain message. More of a distant observer, rather than in the middle of things wide angle perhaps even distorted slightly. (Other than extreme distortion for that effect).

In the case of CSI, my guess is that the mood of the show is 'reality', 'factual', 'undistorted' (aside from the philosophical point of view that any filming necessarily distorts reality...).

In the case of Gotham, while not going as far as the old Batman TV show 'total cartooning', there is some sort of distortion which to me is in keeping with the idea of the comic... excuse me... graphic novel style. I've also noticed more 'dutched' shots as well... no 'ka-pow' in big psychedelic letters yet...

I would go to Canada before going to USA.

 

And before going to Canada, I would go to South Africa.. which is the place to be if you want to become really busy and shoot commercials all the time.. but in Winter :D.

 

Seriously, South Africa is the place! forget about USA.

The question is if Common Wealth citizens have easier immigration amongst other Common Wealth countries? Or, are they pretty much independent and quota driven, perhaps less than the US, but still a hurdle to cross?

It has been a while since I've traveled to the UK specifically, but of the immigration/customs, Australia has been the most like the US... Canada use to be 'ok' but due to the US's activities, I think things have gotten worse going to Canada. Mexico has even scaled up on requiring Passports for foot crossing at Tijuana...

The 'best' place I've traveled has been in Europe were the EU has pretty much eliminated most 'border' issues... this of course is for 'tourist' activities rather than job seeking.

The most 'causal' I've experienced other than 'old Mexico', was in Hungary, shortly after the fall of the Late Great Soviet Empire, where despite the clear stereotypic customs officer and Kalishnikov armed guards... a mere glance at passport and me was it...

 

Bam, that's my ticket in!

 

Clearly I'll just have to sweet talk the immigration officers into it with the deep, sonorous sound of my vocally-fried Aussie twang!

Having recently seen several Aussie actors who have presented a passable US Southern Drawl, you may get a bit further 'passing'. Watch Sam Worthington and Hugo Weaving in "Hacksaw Ridge"(2016)...

Oh, and if there is an ad for 'actors with authentic Aussie accents'... just say no...

But why would you want to go to Holly Weird .. with its high risk of getting skin cancer.. being seduced by nubile maidens crazy for our Brit accent.. cars with no roofs.. dangerous concrete water holes.. and an embarrassment of C stands.. stay in Blighty youngman.. just settle down with a nice cuppa and a Marmite sarny..

Actually I think OZ accents are the rage these days... perhaps its the Gum Trees... and of course NZ accents sort of sound the same to the So. Cal ear, so, they can come along for the ride.

I've said it a thousand times on this forum and others.

 

You can't do it; it's essentially impossible. All work in film and TV is self-employed and you cannot get a work permit to be self-employed in the US.

 

The only way to do it is to be "of extraordinary ability." You will find a few (not many) success stories from actors who have done this. It is much easier for actors than it is for crew, because actors get lots of press very early in their careers and the assessment procedures are predicated, quite often, on how much press you've received.

 

Thus as crew, you won't get any press until you're being considered for major international awards, by which point your ability to work in the USA will be more or less irrelevant anyway.

 

Forget about it.

 

P

Yes, in the case of Actors, the producers can always play the 'need authentic X actor' for some value of X.

My attitude has always been, even for 'immigrants' coming from Oklahoma to Hollywood is... the path to success if fraught with pitfalls and difficulty.

These days, I think it may be better if people don't come to Hollywood, but figure out some way to get projects in their home environment.

The digital age has offered some opportunities that were not available in the past... but by the same token, those opportunities may not pay a 'living wage' for any foreseeable future...

Are you single? Your fastest route to the American dream is right here:

 

http://www.match.com/

Only if you want to live for about a year or two, having the INS perform essentially a protocolgical exam on you and your spouse for the period... and... that doesn't absolve one of having a spouse who can actually 'sponsor' the immigrant.

Hi I hope this is the right section. I haven't posted here much so forgive me if its wrong.

 

In 2017 I will be trying for a living and work visa for the states (to live in NYC). I am still at VERY EARLY stages of deciding on it yet so I have not fully researched. I have visited a few times to NYC so I know it is somewhere I want to live.

 

But I wanted to start here as I am a cinematographer and would love to hear of any British cinematographers on here who may have moved out to the states.

 

Was your process long and hard (I've heard many stories about the difficulty of getting a visa)? What sort of steps did you have to take?

 

I do have family (aunts and uncles) who live there and I have read online that if you have family who are permanent residents (which these family are) then they can petition for you...? Is this true/false, worth it etc?

 

Any advice is appreciated.

 

Oh and please don't make some joke about now Trumps president I shouldn't move there.

 

Thanks!

If these relatives are citizens, there may be some way for them to sponsor you. But otherwise, it is going to be difficult. If you come in as a student, you can't work, and even more so as a 'tourist'.

As a student, there may be 'occupational training' if one is pursuing a 'higher degree', such as an MA or PhD.

There are also some 'business' visas if one is looking to start a business or find investments, but may not allow for 'work' as an employee.

There's the H-1B, which is for 'specific job categories', and one of the contended classifications.

I'm for open borders... which will be the extent of my political statement on the subject.

As mentioned the 'O_1' visa is really for established artistic workers, and difficult to get.

I don't know what the visa/immigration relationship between Canada and the UK, but that may be 'easier'... than the US.

John, you often refer to broadcast TV, but I don't know how many people are watching these shows on broadcast.

The most recent review of the stats for the 18-24 viewer group is that between 2011 and the present, that group has declined about 9 hours worth per week.

This group is important, as it is the 'future' old people who will watch broadcast TV aka Traditional TV, and frequently Over The Air (OTA).

For this is also seen in the under 35 group in general... less broadcast TV viewing.

On the other hand, for viewers over 35, the numbers have been pretty stable for the same period... so, yeah, older people... other than few visionaries... are watching about the same amount of traditional TV.

This decline among the under 35 also correspond to the rise in Over The Top (OTT) access to content, notably via Netflix and Hulu, but now the broadcast networks, in the US that would be ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX, and a new comer to the broadcast world CW, which is a combo of CBS and Werner Bros. are also providing access to their content. (when I stopped watching OTA broadcasts there were only ABC/CBS/NBC...).

There are a large number of cable only 'broadcasters', but they have followed the model of OTA.

Another phenomenon is that with the OTT services, many people are 'cutting the cord', and putting up antennas to receive the local OTA stations, while getting more content via the their internet connection and the OTT services.

Now all they have to do is start writing TV shows with less dialog... and so be less like Traditional TV...

Here's a graph.

Hey John, I watched The 100 a while ago. A lot good ideas in there, but I felt like I needed to be in my 20s again to really let go and enjoy it...

I stopped watching broadcast TV in my teens. Don't know if something like this show would have pulled me back in but, with "The Smother's Brothers Comedy Hour" gone, and "Star Trek, the Geriatric Generation" gone, nothing that I've seen in the intervening years until the 'binge/demand' option has arrived, and I've started to watch some broadcast TV shows.

I have been impressed with some of the Netflix and Amazon shows as well.

Then there's Game of Thrones...

The only downside to mirrors is the time it takes to get it right. You really need a crew who has worked with them before to understand light refraction vs reflection. I've had gaffers scratch their heads and wasted time on set setting this rig up for them. In the long run, the look is fantastic, but it's VERY time consuming.

What do you mean by 'refraction vs reflection'?

Refraction -- the change in direction when light passes from one medium to another, most commonly seen in for example a stick half in water, half out, and it appears to be 'broken' at the water's surface. Refraction also figures in lens designs as different types of glass or other materials have different refraction indices.

There is a small amount of 'refraction' if the mirror has a thickness of glass and the reflective surface is on the opposite side of the glass from the incident light. But if the surface of the mirror is the reflective surface, there would be no 'refraction'.

Of course creating a concave reflective surface will 'focus' the incident light.

I binge watched the 3 seasons of "The 100" a TV show that aired on the CW network. There were any number of references to other Sci-Fi shows and films, but I did like the season's plot lines, and will see if I can watch the next season in more 'real time' than the first 3. IMDB gives it a 7.8 and Rotten Tomatoes 90%, so it seems others like the series as well.

From a factual scientific point of view there are a number of 'holes'... but heck... fiction is fiction for a reason...

Occasionally the dialog gets tedious, but then one has to pay the Gods of TV.

The basic premise is that Earth has been destroyed by a nuclear holocaust, and a survivor group remains on space stations that came together, and formed a habitable structure. But that structure and its processes are decaying to the point were the group has to return to earth, or they will die.

A group of minor offenders (think dirty dozen...) is sent back to Earth to test whether it is survivable.

The first half of season one of the series has a 'lord of the flies' feel. In any case, Earth has not been completely denuded of humans, and the 100 encounter 'barbarian' humans and learn to organize and defend themselves.

I like post apocalyptic dystopia themed films and shows, and I think the show did pretty well.

Apropos this forum, IMDB doesn't list the camera used, and looking on a couple of fan sites, in a BTS shot of the camera crew is visible, I can't identify the camera. It doesn't look like a 'big' ALEXA rig, perhaps more like a Sony. But I could be completely off.

There are a few 'goobers' here and there, where background lights case some strange artifacts, but the lighting is pretty good and more in keeping with modern capabilities that TV shows are now taking advantage of to have more dramatic light.

Is there a difference from hot sunlight in Europe vs America? When researching to shoot a film based in London and with scenes in NYC. Do you think about changing the color of daylight to help sell the difference in cities? What motivates you? How much research do you do on the country or city? Or does't that mater to you?

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

~Marcus

Where in America?

Most of the US is lower in Latitude than Northern Europe. Here's an 'overlay map' of european cities vs the US. There are of course landscape similarities for some, but in general daylight may be different, disregarding weather conditions. The second picture has US cities overlaying the Map of Europe. Where I live in San Diego, the map places me in Algeria...

Thanks for the response.

 

The saving grace is that the moment of taking the photo ends the scene, so we don't have to deal with the smoky aftermath.

 

Interestingly, I did find a picture of a period carbon arc intended for still photography.

 

6-84b-1 Cromwell Street Hoopers Photographic Studio interior 1910 2.jpg

 

This appears to be near-identical to the type described on page 37 of Cassell's Cyclopeda of Photography of 1911 (the page image is a little large to embed on the forum, so click here to view it.)

 

I'm not sure if I can mock that up, but I guess we could assume one was offscreen. Strikes me that even with the umbrella and the bounce, it'd have been fairly hard - and still fairly smoky.

 

And lethal given all that carbon monoxide, indoors. But I digress.

 

P

 

Yes, in keeping with 'modern realism'... you could have as your final scene, the crew knocked out by the fumes... or heck, perhaps even a fire...

The 'flash' power consisting of magnesium will probably get you on the no fly list if you buy 'online'...

I think it would be a good idea. The article mentions that as time passes, there will be fewer and fewer people who know/knew what the process was, and so, this feeds into the conservation and conversion to 'digital' form as an archive method, since how the film was processed and presented, will become unknown.

The article mentions a restoration of "Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari"(1920), which most people who have taken any form of film history class have seen, at least in part... in strictly 'black and white', were as in the period the film may have been tinted, and projected with light that may differ from even modern Film film projector lamps.

I have just a sort of 'passing' interest, and have asked such questions as 'what did 2 and 3 stripe technicolor 'really' look like'... as I've never seen a 'new print' of any film that used such, and even if I had... it would have been over half a century ago... where does the time really go...

Fraid not. I have been asked to go to Saudi and to very religious parts of Africa and despite the tendency to want to say yes to these things I turned them both down on the basis of personal safety.

 

It's one thing if you can follow the rules and know you're on safe ground; it's quite another if the rules are essentially being made up and bought off as people see fit. You can't protect yourself against that.

Sure... I don't drink alcohol much, so the absence of such 'officially' in Saudi Arabia is not a problem and my poverty maintains my marital chastity... the two 'biggies' for Westerns in a 'strict' islamic country. Dubai was far more 'liberal', yet one did have to confine drinking to the hotel bar, or clubs (again my poverty prevented me from living dissolute life...).

I did get a 'this website is not in keeping with the values of the emirate...' landing page for some such in a hotel in Abu Dhabi... wasn't porn... and it wasn't a israeli related site... So I have no idea what 'moral code' the site may have transgressed... I would conjecture that one could transgress other social boundaries without even knowing it until it was 'too late'. The result may be an inconvenient encounter, or more.

I would never drive in the region, and relied on drivers, which were provided by the host company. In that regard, I've relied on mass transit or taxis in most countries that I have visited other than Canada and Mexico, just for the reason that laws vary, as does 'traffic etiquette'...

As for stories... sure... I have them for Mexico... and during my stay in Dubai/Abu Dhabi a number of people had stories, not only other western visitors, but also local citizens.

The biggest problem I had was waiting for me equipment to make it through customs (about a week and half...)... despite preplanning. Then there was the loss of my luggage between Frankfurt and Dubai... but these are sort of usual travel problems when one is doing more than tourist things.

So, I watched lots of British TV with arabic subtitles...

My experience in the Middle East was in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and not for filming but radio network installation. We had a 'host' company which took care of all permits, access, etc. As well as hotel, car+driver, etc.

I'd feel pretty comfortable doing some of that for myself in Europe, as I've been there a number of times, but having the host take care of most of the logistics was beneficial... in fact, probably not doable without.

I'd suggest finding out if there is a film making company or service, that you could hook up with to assist in your project. Dubai is trying to give the impression of a 'liberal' ME city... Abu Dhabi is a bit more conservative... and Saudi Arabia is very conservative.

There is only one 'rock' concert film that I've ever liked... "Monterey Pop"(1968), which documented the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival.

Here's the film crew with cameras in hand or on shoulders... The fest took place about a year before I started being AWOL from home and wander California... well, until the cops took me in custody and returned me home... So there is a certain sort of nostalgia... but one thing I've never been is particularly nostalgic for 'film'...

Some of the modern digital cameras that can produce reasonably clean images @ ISO 3200 would have been great.

I've still got DOS software from the 1980s that will run under Windows 10; OK the hardware support is long gone, but it shows Microsoft know what side their bread is buttered on. You're lucky if Apple software can bridge two generations of operating system, which is why it is still a minority platform.

I can still run my PDP-11 machine code on a FreeBSD or Linux emulator... if I wanted...

Unfortunately I don't have a 9 track mag tape reader working any more... and the 1/4 inch Archive tapes of about 1983 vintage are in an unreadable format...

Then there's the U-Matics I bought a while ago to transfer some old video projects to the modern age...

How about DNxHD?

I asked that earlier... I think Resolve Lite supports DNxHD and would provide a 'cheap' editing capability along with output in a intermediate format useable by an audio tool...

Since I have Premiere and Audition, I use Resolve mostly for color work.

In the olden days continuity was done by hand writing detailed notes. Then came Polaroid, and that was used to document the set. These days a DSLR or perhaps even a smart phone camera can serve the purpose.

For a DP I would imagine using a DSLR to record the lighting setup would be good for setting up the lights the same way later if required.

Or just personal archives...

I recommend Linux or Mac OS if one wants to futz with command line activities.

The DOS... shell that Windows keeps around is very 'broken' relative to even remote user friendliness considerations, and the command options were intentionally made to be 'different' than the Unix Shell of ca. 1980 vintage. Legend has it that Bill was so worried about being sued by Bell Labs aka ATT, that he required the shell not have any 'look/feel' like the unix shell... (such as using the '/' for command options, or the '\' for the file path separator...).

When forced to use a Windows box, I usually install cigwin and then get a bash shell.

But in any case, space in file names is a pain... After years, I finally got the wife to put "_" in place of " " in her file naming conventions, or use CapitalLetters to break words without a space.

There are 'grain' filters, some may be free, some may have some cost. I've experiemented with After Effects 'grain' filters, and probably would use them where I to make a B&W film, but for color the 'free' filters never seemed to give me the effect I want.

I don't know what is available with the 'free' Resolve, as I only use it for my color correction activities, but use Premiere and AE for editing or graphics. I've had the Fusion installer for a while, but have not even installed it... My excuse for zero filmmaking activities is the Wife got a grant to do an art event at Burning Man which has taken all our 'spare' time for the last 8 months...

If you do have some 'free' filters, I'd suggest seeing if they have a 'randomize' each frame option. Otherwise the effect is almost instantaneously 'obvious'.

Color 'grain' is a slight bit more mushy than B&W, as the region where the 'color' dye is captured is 'fuzzier' than the original silver crystal that was used to capture the light.