Jump to content

Jay Young

Premium Member
  • Posts

    576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jay Young

  • Birthday April 16

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Atlanta
  • My Gear
    Arri 2C
  • Specialties
    Tungsten Hard Lighitng

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://YoungPictures.org

Recent Profile Visitors

15525 profile views
  1. I'm late to the party on these replies, but as a gaffer, I'll say this. If on the truck you carry two 18k's, and two 9k's. I'm leaving those 9k's on the truck. Beyond rigging, cost, planning for a long day of whatever - the 9k and 18k on most US sets use the same power rig/run, require the same logistics, same crew power, and generally the 18k is more balanced than the front heavy 9k, while also being more able to cope with temperature/weather. And trust me when I say, when its 116 in the Georgia heat, we only want to set one lamp, and we're super happy to clamp as many scrims as will fit in front of that 18k, rather than swap out the whole lamp because its "not enough".
  2. It really depends, having done both. Example 1: 20k and 18k in a lift, 500 feet away from talent lighting a farm field, and trees in the deep background. A 360 would have no where near the reach, and while it may be able to light a wider field of view, it would fall off too fast to be useful. Example 2: 18k in a lift for heavy stylized moon night work. We dropped a home run in it, and it should have probably been a 4k, but it was already mounted on the lift and we were running out of time. It worked, but was, in reality, a little too much. Even 100 feet back it was reading T8 on the meter. Same show, different DP, we put a 360 in the basket for the same type of thing, and it was maybe 80 feet away. Backlighting a group of people was easy with this setup, dimming was simple, and fast to control. It really depends on what the situation is, what the shot is, and what the DP is requesting for the look. It also depends on how fast you need to move through the day, or how constrained the physical location might be. I will side with the rest and say, I never trust HMI's, and tungsten always strikes. For the same power runs, Maxibrutes all day. I've tried 4K's with soft boxes in a lift, but they are simply toooooo unweildy to do anything meaningful with. In large rigs/boxes on lifts, skypanels are great until you need quality tungsten, then its usually cheaper to go with parcans. Don't get blinded by technology. Tubes/Creamsourse/Digital Sputnik/new hotness, don't solve all problems. They just help us learn new problems we didnt' know existed.
  3. So I just visited Epcot, and viewed both the old and the new circle-vision 360 presentations. Canada was presented in bland HD at best, with bland color and a bit of trick editing. China was presented in 9 screens of real projected 35mm. It was old, scratched, stained, and in very much need of restoration. It was AWESOME! The colors were great, most prints were decent enough, optical dissolves were fantastic, it just felt very nostalgic and “right”. On other person in my party remarked that the China presentation was grainy, and old - mind you he is Chinese and commented that most of the presentation was filmed in the 90s and most of that stuff didn’t exist anymore. He also said that the Canada presentation was far superior because of the presentation. It was better to him, because it was new. This is the most present issue in these arguments, presentation. It is quite difficult for most people to compare a photochemical workflow to a digital one. We have cut out 80% of the photochemical process that gives us a final image. We then further take away films inherent qualities in the digital realm by using tools on that process that were not designed to manipulate film negative. I agree we should not argue film vs digital, but rather we should look at the end presentation. After all, I don’t care which camera body one chooses, laying in my bed, watching a show before sleep time.
  4. I own a cp, am a gaffer, and would happily come light your film. DM to discuss. Happy to negotiate a rate.
  5. You defended film, but complain about what it takes to shoot on film? Then you praise digital for being able to allow you to shoot on a budget you can afford? In the DIY purchasing world, it doesn't make sense to me. If a filmmaker doesn't have any money, why buy expensive LED lamps that look gross anyway? Just get some blonds and bounce them. In the professional rental world, cameras are still huge and heavy - The Sony Venice Panavised with a full cage, 10:1 zoom and gak still weighs 50 lbs. the AC's would treat that camera no different than an Arri ST with 1000' mag. And the ST would be far quicker to setup. The gear never made a difference. But now it does. Tungsten is still cheap, and LED lights get hot. There are false statements coming from all sides. In my experience, the only thing Digital has done is allowed the creation of content that would never have been made previously. I have worked three films so far this year with budgets over 10 million in which production was given $900,000, and the producers took the rest. With named talent, they will make their money back and more. The bigger issue is that it all looks like garbage, and cameras that can see in the dark with extreme high iso's are promoting this type of shooting. Conversely, rental budgets for the gear are so low, we are stuck in a bad spot because LED's are expensive to rent, and so are generators. Its a no win scenario. Praise film for the look it gives. Don't judge too harshly, because in the professional world, all of the same tools are used. The Digital choice has caused more problems than solutions.
  6. Recently I applied for a job in which I was told they would hire a “musical DP”. Beyond tooting my own horn, how does one become a musical DP? Sounds a but like catch 22. Yes, that would have been the first musical I have shot, but I also know they don’t have the financials to hire top tier musical experience. Anyone else have any advice for future job applications? I would love to shoot a musical or 5.
  7. This gives me hope for my Kodak Cine Special! I have to admit, I got sucked into the story.
  8. In Atlanta, older lenses are renting higher than Cooke S4's. Baltars are just about the most expensive rental package. Less than 5 years ago it was the opposite.
  9. I constantly use either a Quasar 6", or an Aputure MC depending on the matte box.
  10. I thought I would update this. I actually found the answer in an offhand comment from one of the production designers for Voyager; it’s neon. the long winded explanation went on to say the Next Generation warp core, and corridors are lit with neon and they wanted a much simpler effect for voyager, which ended up being foil spun on motors for the warp core effect…. in case anyone else was curious.
  11. David, this was my thought as well, but wanted someone else to give an opinion. I’ll have to do an experiment with fluorescent drivers to find one that can mimic that on/off action in a timely manner. Kino ballasts seem to have a delay in firing the lamp? Maybe old ballasts... plenty of them on the shelves these days!
  12. I have searched the web to find a clip of this effect, but I have found nothing. I’ll see if I can make my own.
  13. I have a question about the wrap around set practices in Star Trek: The Next Generation, specifically the white bands that flash red during certain scenes. I noticed recently that the dim time on these fixtures is much faster than the standard tungsten lamp might be dimmed. These lamps flash red. This could be fluorescent tubes which could blink on/off quickly, but I highly doubt they were LED which would be used today. Another option would be Neon, but what about the white? It could be two different units set outside the flats, but that door leads directly onto a different part of the set, so it has to be small enough to fit in the wall. So, what fixture was it? Anyone know? I could have been a LOT of smaller tungten/halogen bulbs wired up with heavy diffusion to make a continuous source.
  14. And here I was, hoping for a digital camera with a base iso of 50.
  15. Do you know you can ask him over at RogerDeakins.com?
×
×
  • Create New...