Jay Young

Shooting with an Arri 1.2K HMI Fresnel, looking at the scope the blue channel was waving at me. We were shooting 45-degree shutter angle, at 24 frames per second. Gaffer put the HMI on "flicker-free" but the banding still continued. We tested different frame rates and shutter angles along with setting the ballast at 60/50Hz and "Flicker-free", but it still banded. I ended up shooting at 172.8-degree shutter for that particular shot because I couldn't get the lamp to cooperate with the camera settings. Anyone else experienced this? I assume it was a wonky ballast as I have used the 1.2K Par with no issues on the same camera settings. And I can't believe the Fresnel would be all that different than the Par in the ballast department.

I was there (at NAB 2017), touched the lens, and played with it at the Tiffen booth on a RED Weapon (or whatever). The lens that has been produced so far is a prototype. Its so prototype in fact, that there is no edge coating on any of the optical elements, so a lot of the issues people have with the lens will be fixed during the first manufacturing run. The guy said he wanted to get a lens together to show, so he left some things out. They are not spectacular, nor are they C/G-series competitors. They have a nice clean look, and feel good to use. They really don't fall apart wide open, nor do they produce any interesting characteristics at any other stop level. They look very similar to the new Angenieux anamorphics that were at the show. I would like to test them further.

Meh.. I've been thrilled with the images I've gotten out of digital cameras that were limited to a 12-stop dynamic range. People mix Alexa's and Blackmagic all the time because the color is very good on both. I would go with the more expensive lens, personally. All things being equal, if the more expensive camera body has the same features as the less, one might only be paying for brand. However, often one is also paying for reliability, so there is that.

Interesting territory we're headed into. I guess some would find T/5.6 to be deep focus these days.

You'll want your AC on a wireless remote monitor also. The teradek can transmit and be received by multiple receivers (up to 3? 4?) so one for the AC is no problem. I've never used RED cameras so I can't tell you how the connections go. But generally, you'll use the SDI out to connect to the teradek, then whatever connection the directors monitor or AC remote monitor uses (SDI or HDMI) connect that way.

I think there is too much emphasis on the background. It's much too even to give a good 'eerie' vibe.

Wrapping up week one - Day EXT shots, lots of background actors and vehicle moves. I was able to get the Zeiss 21-100mm LWZ.3. This lens proved to be very kind to work with, very flat, true, no color issues and performed as would be expected; just sort of neutral. All of the images are ungraded, and I can't remember if the DIT put a Rec709 on the dailies or not. Here you can see how it compared to the XEEN lenses. These images are pulled from the dailies, and I can't recall if they have Rec709 applied or not. Anyhow, very interesting how the Zeiss lens (on left) has a more green while the Rokinon XEEN has a bit more red. Only one of the Zeiss zooms was available, and I liked it very much. Here there are two 5k's just lifting the side of the talents' face (camera right), being pushed through 1/4 CTS about 10 feet away. A 6x6 and two 4x floppies were setup to block reflection on the shiny black car and add just a touch of negative fill in a particular blocking move on the left side of this frame. On location two we were able to get some very nice images. I forgot the eyelight on the turnaround, which was due to trying to cram too much into one day. However I am pleased with this. In this above image there is a mini 9-light with about 6 globes burning - due to distro issues - and a 5K fresnel outside the window in this kitchen. The house had very interesting window shutter/blinds that would open and provide a lovely diffusion, or close to be pulled up. We ended up pulling all the blinds in this scene to keep our light levels. Inside there is a 2K fresnel with a heavy orange gel (Tobacco I believe), a 650w fresnel providing some frontal fill, and two 1k open face just out of frame on the right positioned about 8-feet apart. Of course there are things I wish I had time to do, but the producer and director wanted to move so fast and we were falling behind I had to make sacrafices - I only hope we might be able to nudge these time-issues in color. The location house was situated in such a way that the actual sun wouldn't work for very long in the position we wanted, so we supplemented with 5k's. The art department really outdid themselves for this scene, making an angsty teen's bedroom in about 2-days. Wonderful work! This scene was lit with a 5k fresnel outside the window seen above just to lift the room a bit and blow out since we didn't need to see outside. The actress in the frame grab is walking past a closet with an open face 2K blasted into the ceiling, and flagged to create the effect that the ceiling fan/lamp were working overhead. Here we see the opposite side of the room, where the actual sun is being lifted into the room via a 12x bounce. Those curtains proved to be awesome - well, I loved the color they gave off, others were less impressed on the turnaround as they made the faces too pink. There is a very light pink sheer material behind the curtains which adds more diffusion. This was a very complex stedicam move in which the producers wanted certain things to be seen on screen for digital wizardry to happen in association with some kind of web/internet connectivity or interaction. This took the largest part of our day. Here is how the pink curtains interacted with the scene. In motion, with the windows open the curtains had a nice breeze gently move them so its not continually dark in that corner. It really is quite lovely. I never felt hindered with only having 12-stops of dynamic range. Shooting at an effective iso of 100 did take some adjusting in certain situations, and only once did we have to move back to a 180-degree shutter and go wide open on the lens (T3.1 on the 14mm XEEN). Other than that, I was happy, gaffer liked playing with big lamps, director was smiling.

Wrapping up weeks of prep for a pilot, turned feature + Webseries, Remnant-13 will begin shooting next Friday. Remnant-13 is a zombie show, but instead of drawing from the existing literature, this show takes aim at showing the very initial causes and concerns of a single family. One of the reasons I signed onto the project was the fact that it wasn't a typical zombie show, and didn't play into that realm of standard tropes. Zombies will be seen, but the director has make huge leaps to stay very clear in vision, and decidedly away from the competition (in Atlanta...). Because of the focus on the family, and not reliant on interactions with 'monster of the week' storylines, I was very happy to shoot this show. Originally poised as a television pilot, funding and distribution didn't come as expected, however the producers turned it around and now we are set to shoot a feature, and five 20-minute web specials that will contain material not available in the feature film. Interesting stuff. The director and I sat down and watched the gamut of available zombie pictures, and the director said he wanted something very different, very pointed, "hyper-real", super sharp and visceral, even in the more tender moments. To that end, we tested a number of cameras and settings. Due to budget limitations, and because I felt the color was good enough, this project will use all Blackmagic cameras. Our lighting tests, ultimately with the directors blessing are decidedly old school - mostly hard lighting with a large tungsten package, a few HMI's, and little diffusion. Deep focus was the visual cue that the director sent my way, which I was very excited to do - I pulled up some Dougie Slocombe to show the director, when he jumped out of his chair and exclaimed "That's the look!" The director wanted a more cinematic or cinema leaning television pilot, so we elected to shoot 1.85, however now that we are going theatrical, I feel there is no argument to be made. The producers are want to have the whole screen filled, so there was a bit of gentle coaxing between them and the director. Our camera settings make most of our young/green crew raise an eyebrow: Shooting iso 400, native on the 4K sensors, and at a 45-degree shutter, with a working stop of T8. There are a few key bedroom scenes the director would like to go a bit washed out on, where I might open up the shutter as there isn't much movement and I don't have that many maxi brutes. In September we shot a teaser at night, in the rain, with one HMI and a few 650w and 150w fresnels. This is what really got the fire lit under everyone, and now we are ready to go! I was trying to find the sharpest lens I could to exaggerate the look, but sadly the Leica R's were not available in time, so I am going with a mixture of XEEN primes, and Zeiss zooms. If the 21-100mm LWZ.3 actually arrives by next Friday, I'll use it. If not, then I have a backup Zeiss 28-80mm T2.9 waiting. And, since we're shooting a deep stops, I don't really have to worry about how fast they are (something else that confuses the crew)! The Zeiss isn't quite as sharp as I would like it, but I am hoping the perceived sharpness gained from the increased contrast, and hard lighting, will convince audience viewers that the picture is actually sharper than reality. I had good luck with the 2.5K Blackmagic tests we shot in September, and the hard lighting really adds to the feeling of sharpness. The only worrying thing is how much haze to add, as we have tested various amounts, and will be the real key to make all the lighting and sharpness play together. Not using any filtration on this show. We are shooting in Bowling Green, Kentucky - with Red Star Pictures Louisville, The Camera Department Cincinnati, and Lensrentals Nashville providing the gear. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to discuss during the production other than the basic technical details, however it does say in my contract that I am able to use still images, so I'll provide those as I am able.

Any lab that you deal with should be able to send you cans, bags and cores for free. At least, all the US labs I've dealt with will. Core adapters are a different story.

No love for the L-398a Studio Delux III ? I've had a Minolta IV for about a thousand years. I use it all the time. However recently, I got an L-398a and have been using it on just about every shoot I do. I like the footcandle readout, and the easy to see number sweep... No buttons to press up and down. No batteries... Love it.

Oh man, Oh man, I would have a hard time dealing with not using tungsten units. Cheap LED's look terrible, and I've yet to see a replacement for small fresnels. Big power is great, but I use the 150w - 300w fresnels all the time! I could use a Joker 200, or that Arri Pocket Par, but the units are larger, require ballasts, and would take more grip for the same type of control - also no dimmable. A really nice LED fixture could potentially replace those small fresnels, but then I can rent multiple tungsten units for the same cost.

No, I don't think so. Its been several years tho. There were several writeups about how to spot a fake. You should look those up!

Three years ago, counterfeits were rampant. That is an interesting website, not sure where their data comes from. I'll have to read about that more. Its pretty much established that the 702 is different than the 701, which is cheaper in price and has a different sound stage. If you want AKG, and you want more base, try the 712.

I use AKG K702. I have for about the past 4 years. I've tried with different amps, clean DACs, the whole deal. Since they are an open design, they will differ considerably to something like a closed circumaural SONY design - of which I think has far too much low end to be decent. I love my AKG's, and got them before total manufacturing went Chinese. The K702 is designed to be flat, and used in a relatively quiet and flat environment. They are very revealing. Perhaps you might wish to check out http://www.head-fi.org for their forum and reviews.

John Brawley is using two? on "Queens"? If his flicker posts, and the guy I talked to at PV Dallas are to be believed. I believe that's the name of it. Its a Panavision show, and the URSA Mini looks quite comical at the end of an 11:1 zoom. Still, he bought two, so I guess that's saying something.

I've yet to see a digital camera be able to shift timing or phase of the film pulldown and rotary shutter - those cameras that have a physical rotary shutter. Not that such a tool is always useful, but plenty of these digital cinema camera manufacturers seem to think that I need to record audio....

https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/5xtq9z/pushing_the_technology_of_film_negative/ In the article he said they viewed side by side tests of the digital / Film projection and preferred the film? Or, could not find a reason to shoot digital. I am fine with being a niche DP. I'm going to keep pushing for the format, and keep the knowledge alive - someone has to.

Recently I was reading this article in which DP Linus Sandgren offers an in-depth look inside the making of the musical LA LA LAND and shooting it on film. I encourage you to read the article and then post your thoughts. Linus says this quote: In the industry now, there is a rush to develop digital technology. They are embracing it because it’s new, but if you want to work with perfection, you should probably go back to where we are with film cameras and perfect that. We can't forget that it's also an art form. Which sent my head reeling... I wanted to see how you all felt about the advancement of film negative technology. What is the next step? Film cameras can do things that digital camera can not because they are analog devices. They can literally manipulate the image in ways that are impossible for digital, except inside a computer. The Arricam ST and LT and the Panavision Millennium XL2 are probably the most advanced electronic motion picture cameras produced to date. The invention of the tabular grain structure, the continued evolvement of the Vision film stocks from Kodak that keep pushing image acquisition ability, modular transfer function, and latitude... it just keeps getting better. So, what would you feel the next evolution in film acquisition might be? I for one am glad that cinematographers are interested in furthering the technology of the film medium, instead of focusing on digital technology which sometimes gives an image that is less than desired. I am glad that the notion to make all digital footage look like celluloid has waned a bit, yet I am still waiting for digital camera manufacturers to understand that color is more important than pixels. I posted this on Reddit, to which some commented there is an increased cost - people that use to work in the industry, that worked with film daily... Or that their films never looked as good as the digital images they can now produce. Of course, in this sense good is subjective. And, while I agree that film should be a projection format, the current industry limits that support and art platform. Still, if more cinematographers were to continue to push film, I wonder what the outcome would be. I am glad that there are artists such as Linus who embrace the workflow and try to make it better. Thoughts?

I guess that is why cinerama used flat strips of screen material; so it wouldn't interfere with the opposite sides of the projection...multiplied by three projectors!

I don't understand the market they are trying to reach. I'm shooting at the end of the month for 4 days and I elected to go BlackMagic. Really I want to see just how far I can push these cameras. I thought about shooting a feature I have later this year on the URSA's, but it just didn't make sense at the time - Alexa has better color, and everyone is use to that workflow. I am somewhat disappointed that the big URSA has not gotten any love. It seems like it would fit in the war for proper cinema camera, but judging by the press release, BMD is making just enough money to make pro-sumers, ENG, and beginner filmmakers happy, but doesn't care to play in the professional field. Still no OLPF, but some people I have talked to already purchased the PRO model because it has built in ND; they were very happy of the fact they didn't have to carry around a matte box and filters. With a substantial investment in filters, I'll always have a matte box! But, I can rent them so cheaply, and they make a pretty image.......

The most interesting thing about this whole deal is that the guy that was suppose to be hired in the first place, was not, and then my friend said 'Call Jay!", so they did, which I then passed off to the guy who was suppose to be hired in the first place!

I've been listening to a lot of talks, interviews and reading books about some of the great cinematographers lost in the past year. One thing that has stuck with me is that they usually all say take every job that comes by. So last night, I turned down a job. Not because I couldn't work it, or didn't like the project, but because the job was for a Swing 2nd AC, B-cam 1st AC. I came up through electric. Jobs that I don't DP, usually hire me as Gaffer. I can't remember ever pulling focus on a serious, professional job. To that point, I called the guy that I usually hire as my 1st and asked if he was available. Because I really felt as quickly as they wanted to move, even tho I can build out a camera with the best of them, pulling focus should be left to someone with experience and mindset, and practiced hands. I may know all the terms, and understand the equipment, but since I haven't performed that role, I declined. I wanted to know if any of you ever take jobs in different areas than you are experienced. Some work better than others - I would like to think I can probably grip as best as the next person. However I would stay away from costuming - I do well to dress myself in the morning... Love to hear your thoughts.

I think they look great! What was the Atmos used for?

You could potentially just frame for 1.33? If the lens mount has been physically moved, it would be cheaper to get another Kinor - I assume. Why would you want to do this?

I laughed muchly at this. Good show! I thought about keying with the 5k, but I would need a much less sensitive medium... I'm going to test in a day or twould and see how much I can get out of a tweeny.