Matthew Padraic Barr

Since this is your first endeavor in filmmaking, I wouldn't recommend trying too many -- if any at all -- of these "impossible shots." When you see these types of shots in modern films, they are most often shot using a remote crane which allows for the intricate patterns of movement to be exactly replicated without as much of a human error factor. These remote cranes are extremely expensive. Mirror work is also very difficult because you can't hide lights or sound equipment nearly as easily. I also would be careful about relying on too much post-production on these types of shots, or at least test them out extensively before hand to make sure you have the technology that will allow for those shots to be executed properly. If you don't have someone experienced in post-production, these shots will be literally impossible. It's difficult enough planning the lighting, blocking, camera movement, camera angles, sound etc. on a simple dialogue scene so I would focus on simple shots.

It's always important to know the project's intended viewing system. Will your primary viewing medium be YouTube, DVD, a large projector in a theater, etc? This will affect your choices in the cinematography. For instance, if you're not projecting in a large theater, it may not be necessary to spend all that extra money on a external recorder and RAW data storage, which is quite expensive. Depending on the story, the cinematography could use a gritty aesthetic in order to enhance the story. As for the low cons, I'm not sure what you mean by "definition," but a low con filter only lowers the contrast of the image, which might be necessary in the desert landscape of Afghanistan. Another trick I've picked up over the years is using an upside down grad filter, in your case the sand would be covered by the grad portion of the filter, in order to get a lowered contrast when the sun is excessively lighting the ground.

I wish I could've seen Inland Empire on the big silver screen. Unfortunately, I had to settle for the BluRay. Thanks for sharing that little anecdote. He is one of my favorite people to hear talk about his work. -mpb

This is the best news I've heard in a while. Don't get me wrong, the digital aesthetic in Inland Empire was interesting and retained that Lynchian quality. But I've always been much more fond of his earlier work, which seems to rely a bit more heavily on the story-line and a bit less on the nebulous imagery -- though Mulholland Drive seems to be the best of both worlds, and my favorite in his filmography. I can't wait to see both of these projects. -mpb

Very true, Bill. Good point. Insurance is always a big worry of mine on low-budget projects. -mpb

It depends on the city as well. In NYC, as Bill mentioned, you will have more difficulty finding accommodating locations; they will ask for financial compensation. But I've shot in Phoenix, Nashville, Dallas, LA, etc. and I've found locations that were very accommodating, sometimes even letting us shoot for free, granted they were often short scenes. If you plan your shoot really well this can work. If you're planning to shoot a long scene, though, you might have a more difficult time find a place without any money. -mpb

Early on in my career, when I didn't have much help to find locations, I would use google maps with the street view to at least have a look at the exteriors. Also, before even going to the location, you'll want to call the establishment and talk to the GM. Many places, especially in a major city, will not let you shoot there under any circumstance, other places are very accommodating. You'll want to find this out before scouting because there is no sense considering a location if there is absolutely no chance of you shooting at that location. -mpb

Got it. Thanks again. -mpb

Ok, I'm following; for the most part. Do you think it's really necessary to concern ourselves so much with with these 14 stop DR's, when it is very likely that only cinematographers can perceive the difference? What's your philosophy about this? It would be much easier to work under a standardized 10-stop system, and since Rec.709 displays 11 stops, this would make sense even at the DVD distribution level. We could then work on the DI a bit to get a bigger DR for the DCP for theater distribution. Also, do you know how much DR a BluRay display system can display? -- I've heard BluRay is YCbCr 4:2:0 native, but I've never heard a DR estimation. If BluRay can display closer to 14 stops than all this extra work I do for those last few stops would be worth it in my opinion, since many cinephiles enjoy BluRay.

Wow, thanks David. That was a lot more concise than I expected. I recently saw Big Sur -- on DVD, unfortunately -- and I thought it was really great. Although I couldn't see what you fully intended, I still got a good feel of the style. It was really great work. -mpb

I was recently testing out the Black Magic 4K camera system and I was having a bit of trouble figuring out the actual latitude. I can easily look up the estimated dynamic range provided by the manufacturer, however I like to be exact in my work, and I've found these numbers put out by the manufacturers to be estimations that can be higher or lower than the actual dynamic range. My question is this: since digital systems handle the highlights better, and I'm used to measuring latitude based on the sensitometry of cellulose-acetate film base, how might I adapt to the digital systems which are omnipresent in the industry now? I know this is a complicated question, and given that we have a plethora of gamma curves that vary depending on the camera systems and the settings within those systems, this may yield a complicated answer -- though if anyone would like to take the time to give me the complicated answer I would love to read it. I really just need to better understand the gamma curves of digital systems, so if any of you know of some recent books devoted to this which I could use as a reference for all the camera systems and Post workflows, I would appreciate the tip. Also, I realize this may seem excessive -- measuring the latitude when clearly using a monitor would be easier. But I use a few techniques that will not allow me to use monitors on set because they involve post processing similar to the pull and push processing of film. -mpb

Ive shot about 10 films on 16, so Im very familiar with the dynamics of the new Kodak vision 3, 16mm stocks. Im currently working on a project in Northern Arizona but I will wrap in 4 weeks.

You need to plan ahead when shooting widescreen for many reasons, so if you haven't, getting a 2.35 or 2.40 after the fact in post isn't ideal. You could crop a very small area and do 185, since you didnt frame for 235 or 240.

Do you have a script you are ready to shoot?

Widescreen can refer to a few different aspect ratios, and all can be achieved by simply cropping the top and bottom of the frame -- assuming you didn't shoot anamorphic or on film, you will not loose image quality by cropping. You're probably thinking of 2.40:1 or 2.35:1 when you said widescreen; this is common. What editing system are you using?

Thanks for the info, David. I greatly admire your work.

It seems to me that this could easily be digital capture and that look may be achieved with the use of the right LUT instead of doing more prints on film since thats clearly not an option on 16.

That was my reservation with doing skip bleach: it's all or nothing. Whereas ENR has the option of variable amounts, which, since I know I dont want to use a full ENR look -- like Saving Private Ryan -- I was thinking more in the realm of William Friedkin's Jade, which only used a little ENR. Id like to do just a bit more than what Ive seen in Jade, but I really liked the subtle effect of the ENR; It added just a bit more in the blacks and the image didnt loose too much color.

Im finally shooting on film again in a few months on a short film. Our budget will only allow us to shoot 16, but Im considering using ENR -- which I might fund myself -- because the dark storyline could be enhanced by slightly bleak and contrasty cinematography. Ive never heard of anyone using any silver retention processing on 16, so naturally Im curious if there is any precedent. Has anyone heard about or tried this? Im going to test this, obviously, but it would be nice to know as much as I can before testing. Its been so long since Ive shot film that Im not even sure ENR is still offered at FotoKem (LA) or Technicolor (LA) anymore. Last I heard skip bleach and ENR are still an option.

well said man. I was a little too brief probably.

You're shooting RAW? I'm assuming. I haven't shot on many DSLRs in my line of work, but the essentials of composite photography are the same. Now, these rules are based off of my knowledge of front and rear projection as well as traveling matte cinematography. First, you need a nice even illumination of the greenscreen, which it sounds like you are perfectly capable of doing with the equiptment you have. Depending in the type of greenscreen you are using, the lighting will differ, but with the 7d and those lights you will have no problem getting a good exposure of the screen. Another major point is the relation between the camera and the greenscreen, and the placement of the players in the foreground. The old rule is you want to keep 10-12 feet from the greenscreen to you principle subject in order for the modeling light to not cast a shadow on the greenscreen. This isnt as relevent today with digital technology has progressed, but its an important consideration nonetheless. Also the level of illumination on the greenscreen and the quality of light is important in regards to the camera white balance. Be sure to balance out all of the color of the tungsten lights. I believe you want the same f-stop for both the greenscreen and the subject as well.

It's important to know a few more things about this. Namely, what camera are you planning to shoot this? And what will be on the greenscreen? Its imortant to know what the background will be in order to frame the foreground material in a pleasing way. The type of camera is important as well, since the higher quality camera will give more information to the editors who will be doing chroma key work.

Personally, I think you're asking the wrong question. Vitorrio Storaro would argue that trying to recreate someone elses lighting in strictly technical terms would not create the effect you are looking for in a cinematographic style; and moreover, why would you wany to recreate someone elses lighting -- its your film, you have the creative control. Oftentimes the style of a film is developed out of necessity -- a lack of equiptment, slower film stocks, an over zealous studio exec, etc. If you really want to make this film, youre going to have to be practical, and assuming you dont have thousands of dollars to spend on renting the Alexa, you will have some limitations on what your visual style can be. This does not mean that you cannot capture interesting photography, however. In the film The Warriors, Andrew Lazlo, ASC shot the opening sequence without the comforts of the appropriate lighting equiptment to properly expose the much slower, late 70's film stocks on a night exterior wide shot, which, by taking a chance and shooting the train with uncorrected florescents and with a major portion of the frame severly underexposed, he created a very memorable opening sequence. This is the reality of style. It evolves as the day to day battles on set continue. Now, theres nothing wrong with using other cinematographers work as a reference of course; but as I said there is a danger here, and you should be careful not to focus too much on the technical instead focusing on the story and how you can beat serve the story with the cinematography.

You seem to be misunderstanding the science of light and how it relates to white balancing on video systems. First off, I dont know where you heard that 5300 kelvin is a white light, but the color temperature of daylight ranges quite a bit -- though 5600 is generally referenced as a good number. When you set a white balance, you are essentially telling the camera what kelvin temperature will appear white: setting the white balance with a tungsten light on a white card will set the white balance to around 3200 kelvin -- depending on the exact color temp. of the light -- and everything shot with that same light will appear white, as well as the opposite effect for the higher color temp. which will appear blue. For instance, if you set your white balance to 3200 -- or set the white card with the Tungsten light -- all the daylight in the frame will appear quite blue, which is what you were seeing. For an opposite effect, doing a white balance to a white card in daylight will tell the camera sensor that the daylight should appear white, and thus all the 3200 kelvin, tungsten light will appear warm -- and amber/orange tint.

at 300 fps, I would use the old school sun back light and large reflector to fill in or as a model light.