John Hall

Having proof of a human cause of global warming is not the same as having evidence of it. There is in fact a great deal of evidence that human activity is causing a warming of the planet. Yes, there are studies that show evidence of a natural cause, and they should certainly be considered in any final analysis. Is it conclusively proven? Perhaps not. Is there enough evidence to justify further research and preemptive action? The opinion of the majority of the scientific community, whether or not they are 100% convinced of a man made cause, is a resounding "yes". Even if you believe it is premature to draw a conclusion as to the cause of global warming, surely you can't think that the warming of the planet, whatever the cause, isn't something we should be concerned about. Is it ridiculous to spend the money researching global warming, and doing what we can to prevent it, if indeed, we can? Should we do nothing to try and stop or slow down the process? Should we instead spend the money planning on how to live on our drasticaly altered planet? That, I think, would be ridiculous.

I'm not the least bit into celebrity gossip, but I thought this was funny. Jennifer Aniston's Gripping Romance Most guys I know chat up the wardrobe girls, but this guy must have some charisma! Aparently he's also dated Canadian actress Kristin Kreuk. I'm guessing he's not a free-tshirt-tucked-into-wrangler-jeans kind of technician, or if he is, he must talk some unbelievable game. I read a couple different articles about this, and everyone gave a different, inaccurate explanation of what a grip does. Describing a grip as someone who moves equipment around set is like saying a mechanic is a person who takes stuff out of your car and then puts it back in.

It's not really as orthodox an approch as you might be thinking. Taking a reading with the meter pointed towards the camera may give you an mean reading of the light and dark regions, allowing you to expose somewhere in the middle. But what if you want the key side to be at the middle of the exposure, or perhaps you want the key side to be really hot, and the fill side to be just a bit under? In your second scenario, if you want a silhouette with a hot rim light, why not meter the dark side, and, exposure a few stops under that, to get your subject in silhouette. then meter the back light (with the meter on touching the subject's back, but faceing the lamp) and decide how many stops over you want it. A spot meter is great for 'checking' particular areas to see just how hot they are, but if you don't really know what 3 stops over will mean on your negative, it won't really tell you much. A spot meter also takes into account the lightness of reflectivity of a surface. Sometimes its helpful to know just how white that white shirt is going to be. Convention is no substitute to making your own decisions.

Sounds like you're talking about moving light fixtures, like the type you'd typically find in a club or at bigger rock shows. These are 'spot' lights that can pan and tilt 360 degrees. They have a colour wheel in them so you can 'dial up' different colours. These lights can be programmed to do a 'club' type light show, and you just have to adjust the pattern to occasionally flare the lens with one. If you're shooting at a real club they probably have some of these fixtures already installed, probably Martin MAC 250s or something, and you could easily utilize them for your shoot. If not you can rent them for probably a couple hundered a day. These lights are controlled using the DMX protocol. If it's a big enough club, they may have a lighting director who programs the lights using some decent control hardware and software, and perhaps he could even help you program your patterns. Smaller clubs may just have an automatic controller that plays perecorded patterns in time with the music. If the latter is true, you may need to rent a control console, someone experienced enough to operate it, or you could use one of the PC based systems out there, I can give you more info in a follow up post if you would like.

They probably lit the cyc with spacelights hanging from the grid to get an even exposure on the wall, curve and floor. It looks like they were keyed from the side with a soft but directional source, probably a big light through some diffusion. You can see head shadows on the shoulders. And probably a big bounce for fil. At least, thats how I've lit a few corporate video 'mac vs pc' spoofs i've worked on *groan*. They've also probably done a lot of post work to make the white perfectly even (if it is indeed a cyc wall) and get ride of multiple shadows on the floor. The only real shadows appear directly behind and under them, which initially made me think of a huge soft bounce over the camera (10x20 or something), but the lighting on the talent doesn't indicate that.

Now you're discussing consumers and thats a whole different kettle of fish (*groan*). An electric kettle saves the average person plenty of time and, perhaps, money. It is the afficianados that debate about the true merits of a system based on it's end result. Average people want convenience. If the film vs video question were posed to a consumer, he or she would probably ask "Will shooting movies on video make it cheaper for me to see them?" (fat chance, I know...) I, myself, prefer espresso from the cafe by my house, and I pay a premium for this.

I bought the 558 photo version, simply because I got a very good deal on it, beyond the $300 difference in cost. The thing to remember about these things is that they're basically an analogue light meter with a calculator. The Cine version simply has more options for making adjustments to your light reading, most of which can still be done on the regular version, or your arithmeitic-enabled brain. It may not let you dial in things like shutter angle, but its not difficult to compensate by changing the ASA speed. The only thing I miss about the Cine version is footcandle readings, which the photo version doesn't do. This isn't a function that on it's own is worth $300 mind you. To me, the 558 represented a better value. I don't work on film shoots very often, and when I do, it's often I personally need a light meter. I almost never use it for video stuff, except perhaps the spot meter to check a greenscreen or something. I bought it mainly for my personal projects, and for the odd time I'd need it professionally. In this capacity it has served me well. That's me though. What sort of work are you going to be doing? Will you be shooting lots of film? Is it for professional use or just personal stuff?

Mole Richardson sells a high heat 'mole red' spray paint. I can take a look tomorrow and give you the part number. You can buy it from http://www.barbizon.com/. There's also a thread on refurbishing old mole lamps here: http://www.cinematography.net/Pages%20DW/R..._Old_Lights.htm

I had planed on making a 16mm positive print, then blowing that up to 35 IN, then making a print from that. I had done something similiar in the past, blowing up from a 16mm positive to 35mm neg (5272 I believe), with a contact print made form the 35mm negative. As I mentioned eariler, this print appeared to have lost some contrast and saturation. I will be doing the optical printing myself on an older Oxberry at LIFT, a Toronto filmmaker's Cooperative. I'm not very experienced with any of this, but when I took a workshop years ago on using the printer, our source material was positives, either reversal or prints. However, I'd be happy to blow up from the 16mm neg, as getting out of the 16mm realm as early as possible must make for a better image. My only concern about going from the neg is that I will be doing steps, skips, bipacking, perhaps multiple passes during the printing session. Invariably this means running back and forth over certain sections of the footage to cue things up and i'm worried about overhandling my original neg and possibly damaging it. I guess I will just have to be very meticulous about keeping the projector element clean and minimizing transports over the footage. So based on your suggestions, I think I may go this route: -Process 16mm neg normally (I will be getting an unsupervised transfer to do my rough edits) -Blow up to 35mm IP -Contact print a DN (I may BB this if the footage still looks too 'clean') -Telecine the DN, give video to sound designer -Make 35mm print from DN with soud lock. Do any colour correcting at this stage. Just a note; I am hoping to be able to assemble the edit at the printing stage (having alredy more or less locked the edit on video). Any thoughts? Thank you very much for your advice Dominic. I know this thread has strayed a bit from the original topic, but I apreciate all your insights into the photochemical post process. I have very little experience in this end of filmmaking (an electric by trade), and your advice has been invaluable. I will be certain to post all my results.

Thanks for the response Dominic. I should have mentioned that desaturation and contrast are of my goals. I want a very stylized image, and as the whole project is in the photochemical realm, I have to achieve that in processing. All the shots (save for one) are exterior. No people, mostly shots of a wind turbine, trees. Basically landscapes with the subjects in the foreground. I shot mostly with a polarizer so the sky shouldn't be too washed out. To give an insight into my post path: I shot on 16mm and will be making a print. From this I am going to blow up to 35mm on an optical printer (doing some step/skip printing as well as combining some images together), then making a 35mm positive print for projection. I wanted to make sure I had enough contrast on my original footage, as on a previous optical printing project I noticed the image getting washed out the further it went though the photochemical process, but perhaps this isn't typical. I think I will process the 16mm footage normally as you suggested, and maybe do some processing tricks on the 35mm, either the neg or the print. If I do the bleach bypass on the 35mm neg, am I correct in assuming the granularity won't be as severe as on the 16mm neg? Do you have any idea what a bleach bypassed internegative might look like? As I said, this is an experimental film. To me, the whole thing is a bit of a test. The whole project is under 1000ft of film, so if I have to reshoot a few shots it's no big deal (so long as I don't run out of 7248!).

I am in the process of shooting a personal experimental project on 7248 EXR 100T. I was given this film, a few years ago. The previous owner claimed to have kept it in the fridge since purchasing it. He also provided a clip test result: Normal: .15 .51 .91 Result: .24 .62 .97 I know the film is fogged a bit, but during my shoot I didn't have much room to overexpose it (perhaps 1/3 - 1/2 stop at times). As this is an experimental film, one which I will be finishing photochemically and optically priting to 35mm, I had hoped to 'burn' in some contrast by pushing the stock 1 stop, printing down (I want some extra density for the optical printing stage) and doing a bleach bypass. I haven't processed the film yet, as I wonder if my special processing will do more harm than good. What affect will the push / print down / bleach bypass have on the appearence of fog? I exposed the film normally or close to normally, which I know isn't ideal for old footage. Will push processing raise the image out of the fog area? If pushing the film and printing down will help me clear the fog level, I may just do that, and leave the bleaching for the interneg, or perhaps the print. Thanks in advance for any insights.

You are well within your rights to refuse to work on any job for any reason. Plenty of guys will decline projects that go against their principles. Perhaps they believe the project is gratuitously violent, sexuallly exploitative. You may also decide to turn down a job because it is being produced for a company that you don't believe operates ethically. Exxon, General Electric maybe, to name but a few. If you decide to decline a job, honesty is the best policy. Explain that you are uncomfortable with the subject matter. Remember that the person hiring you is probably a third party (ad agency, production company) who has chosen to work on this project. Avoid sanctimony! If you feel comfortable, you can recomend some of your colleagues for the job. If I decline a job for any reason, even scheduling conflict, I will give them numbers of some technicians I feel will do a good job.

I wouldn't worry too much about the specific instructions for this particular mount. The most important thing would be to have a grip that can attach any mount to a car. If you, or your crew are inexperienced with rigging, that you shouldn't attempt to attach a camera to a car, with or without instructions.

Just did this on a music video this past weekend. Great results, but it was very hard for the steadi op to move around in the back. And this was a cargo van, not a mini van.

How did you handle focus on the Jib? Did you have a remote trigger to start the camera, or did you have to start rolling film and then swing the jib into position?

From GE Lighting's website: Ralph, the HIR versions of the FCM bulb are definitely more expensive than their standard counterparts. (all figures USD) One shop in Toronto sells the FCM's for $10, and the FCM HIR's for $21. A little more than twice the price; However, if you were using the HIR's to replace 750W EMD's in Totas they're closer in price (EMD's are $15). So using our previous scenario, to outfit 10 spacelights with 6 bulbs each, would cost an additional $660, compared to regular FCM's. So the cost increase isn't insignificant, but all things being equal (bulb life, light quality), the savings both financial & environmental (less power consumed, less air conditioning required) certainly make it, in my mind, something worth pushing for.

Does anyone here have any experience with these new 650W FCM/HIR (also called FWM) bulbs? They're meant to be nearly as bright as normal 1000W FCM bulbs, according to GE, about 1/8 stop less, but drawing only 650W. Everything I've read or annecdotal evidence I've heard sounds good.Different data sheets around the net they have the same bulb life as FCM's. Some sources say they are slightly higher in colour temperature at 3275K; not a big deal since they're usualy behind a silk or chimera bag which changes the colour temp a bit anyway. These bulbs would appear to be great in: Tota Chimera's: More output than 750 EMD's. Less heat to damage fixture, chimera bag. Spacelights: Less power consumption, a 6k spacelight now only draws 3900W. If you have 10 spacelights on a set, that saves 21,000W! Plus less heat, less energy wasted on air conditioning. Has anyone used these or requested them in their fixtures? Any problems? Are they more fragile? Is the quality of light any worse? I'll post back here with my observations of using these bulbs over the next little while, but if they're all they're meant to be, I think gaffers should start requesting these in their fixtures. Here are links to GE's product pages. FCM: http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/...ieldCode=FT0013 FCM HIR: http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/...ieldCode=FT0013

As Kevin pointed out, grip equipment is not that expensive. And I've seen people get a decent result using just a 4x4 frame with 250 and bounces. Now that's not a lot of coverage, but if you have to be more discriminating in your choice of location & most importantly, what is in the background of your shot.

Matt, most spacelights I've used are powered by three cables with standard AC ends (don't know if this would be the same style in Europe). Each of these cables powers two 1000w bulbs (17 amps @ 115volts). These fixtures don't tend to be too expensive as they aren't very hard to build. However, I would guess they cost at least $400 or so. Plus you hae to get a silk for them, which can cost around $100 to have something sewn. That being said, these are really more useful for lighting larger studio spaces (see photo), not really intended for locations or small spaces. In fact, all the ones Ive used aren't even approved for use outside of studios. I've certainly never heard of anyone buying these for a beginners kit.

I'm not sure if the contract between you and the production can have binding clauses on deals that have yet to be negotiated between the production and the crew. Your deal may only affect your work hours and conditions. If the deal memo for the crew doesn't include the same work hour conditions, they may be able to have them work longer with out breaching YOUR contract. I'm not a lawyer, and I may be way off on this, but since loyalty to your crew is important (and you should be commended for it), I would check to see what you have to do to contractually obligate the production to gaurentee crew hours / conditions.

I don't think that's horribly immoral at all. It's a very common thing for art directors to do on commercials. Wardrobe people do it often as well (more so on 'style' shoots where they want new, trendy looking clothes.) I've seen these guys keep tax files full of tags and stickers and what article of clothing it came off of. I think these companies, Ikea, Gap etc, all turn a blind eye to it. It's free advertising for them. So long as the furniture, clothes, electronics or what ever don't get damaged, they don't seem to care why you are returning it. I just want to point out that I don't know what these stores' official policy might be, and I am not opining that anyone should contravene that policy. I'm only stating what seems to be commonplace in the industry.

If you're really in a bind, ask the art director (if you have one) if theres anything they can put on the wall to help at least break up the white a bit. A painting, some shear or a curtain perhaps. Your situation will dictate what might be appropriate. But you've got the idea, keep as much light off the wall as possible, picking up small elements, such as pictures, on the wall with very controlled lights (snooted fresnel, or perhaps a source 4). If you can light with diffuse sources like a china ball, lower their intensity, but keep them close to the talent, the quick fall off of the light will help keep light off the wall.

It's funny you should post this, as I am planning to do almost the exact same thing with a bolex, except I'm going to be shooting an element of a vfx shot (crackling electricity / lightning), to be combined later on an optical printer. The concerns that initially came to mind were: -Black level. Will the monitor have enough contrast that I can expose the image normally (or perhaps a bit over exposed) and still have the blacks black. -Resolution. With text, this will probably be a greater concern to you Kali (I'm assuming that's your real name, you need to follow this board's rules on display names & signatures). Are they any concerns about what size monitor should be used to film off of? I was considering finding someone with a good size HD television and outputting from my computer to the monitor's dvi input. I would imagine resolution issues would be especially important in 16mm. Good luck with your shoot, please post your results here so we can benefit from your experience.

Rodrigo Prieto did just this on Brokeback Mountain. It's mentioned in the American Cinematographer article (Jan '06) on the film, with some photos of the balloons in a field. You just have to make sure the balloons stay fairly still I guess

I don't know if this would work for your situation, but I once had to shoot an old wood television with it's screen replaced with a greencloth. There were several lighting changes in the shot, a camera move, as well as people walking in front of the screen, making frontlighting the screen impossible. So we backlight the cloth from inside the box with a lowell (I think, this was a few years ago). We had a fairly thin chromakey green cloth, this won't work with a spandex digital green or anything. This may be tougher to achieve in your shot depending on how many boxes there are, and if you can't hide cables.