Andrew Ko

Hey guys, I was wondering how you guys thought they lit this scene in 'Gone Girl'. Would you ever use the house lights to do this? Considering the crowd is so evenly lit. But you also see two pools of light on the far wall, and one on right side frame. Lemme know your thoughts, Thanks

Wow ... Amazing answers guys, this forum is truly a blessing. Thanks especially to Brian for such a detailed answer, I appreciate you taking the time to write that out, I'll make sure to keep it as reference.

Hi guys, So I know that a lot of LED sources are more energy efficient than tungsten sources, and so could output more light with similar or even less wattage. I'm planning on purchasing some lights next year for a short film. I'm used to using Arri 650s from my school, and am trying to get some kind of frame of reference for how much light I'll be getting for my money, and just a general way to "compare" lights and have an idea what I could be working with. My instinct tells me I should be comparing lights by lumen or lux, but I know that generally on set people refer to lights only by wattage. So should I be thinking in Watts or Lumens? Thanks! Andrew To give an example from school, I generally worked with a set of 3 Arri 650s (Tungsten bulb) along with a 1.2K HMI (LED source). How could I calculate how many 650s I would need to equal the output of the HMI when their sources are completely different? The HMI, although it was only 1.2K seemed to output way more than all 3 650 lights combined!

Yeap, I graduated pretty much right when Covid hit. Thanks so much! And thanks for this detailed feedback, I'll definitely consider every point you mentioned. I appreciate it, especially the specifics you went into, this will help a lot. Andrew

Hello, This is my cinematography reel coming out of a film school in Toronto. Please let me know what you think! Reckon I could get any work with this? Thanks.

Holy poop. Thanks so much for this! I was looking for something like this, but never thought someone would give such a detailed post. Wow, a lot of your story is very enlightening and helps a lot! Much much much thanks for taking your time to write this. I will be studying this post for awhile.

True, talent and knowledge does seem to be the most important. I guess when I look around I just see that people require a certain standard for what you have experience shooting with (ie., it might be hard to get work if you only have experience on Canon prosumer DSLRs no matter how good the work is). In other words, it seems like a requirement, not necessarily your selling point. I guess what I mean by "medium-high level productions" would be anything with an AD. In other words, nothing like small corporate videos that you would make with a DSLR where you do every job including editing. Interesting, yes I do plan on joining the union (just got in as a permittee) as an electric so good to know that it comes as such a recommended route. Thanks!

Wow, thanks so much David for your detailed reply. Actually, I was hoping for a reply from you! Times may be different, but I like to think there are some universals that are always relevant, so I'll definitely keep everything you've said in mind. Reading through your answer, it did light up some bulbs in my current thinking for what I plan on doing this next year when I graduate, so your advice is very much appreciated. - Andy

Hi there, I've been finding it a little hard to find practical advice about acquiring a first paying gig as a cinematographer -- key word, practical. So I'd like to throw it to you guys and ask, how would you go about finding your first paid gig as a cinematographer in medium-high level productions. (this discludes one-man team type content such as wedding videos, videos for small businesses, etc.) Here are the assumptions: Student X: Has just graduated film school with a decent reel with at least a base "sellable" quality. Does not own a cinema camera, and in fact has some school debt to deal with. Does not have any "free-ticket" connections, such as a family member or friend in the industry. Now, I have some guesses. Let me know if any of them ring true: Join the local camera union, and work as an 2nd/1st AC for 10+ years until one day you get thrown a bone to work as a cinematographer. Do something else for a living for 5+ years until you acquire $40,000+ to start with your first camera package, then sell yourself with that. But the thing is, both of these paths seem rather unreasonable. I've worked on sets as an electric/camera trainee and I've seen fairly young cinematographers just out of film schools doing shoots for music videos and the like. Are these all rich heirs to cash that have managed to get themselves an ALEXA mini? There must be a better way! Furthermore, lets say you do manage to get yourself a decent camera package and a solid reel. Where do you even look for work? Kijiji? Facebook? Seems unprofessional. Anyways, what would you tell Student X? I would love to know! - Andy

Very interesting observation. The idea of the digital vectorscope having a more diffuse point cloud somehow rings true for me thinking about a certain flatness to digital compared to film that I notice. Thank you for your response, and everyone else as well.

I see, interesting. They did mention in the article a lot of bout skin tones in reference to film and digital, something about "letting it go red," but I forget the details. Thanks for your insight!

Wow! A very interesting answer, one that I've never heard before as far as the digital debate goes. Thank you for taking the time to write this, it certainly seems like insight with a deeper understanding of the systems at play. P.S. How do you even get to know this stuff?

In the latest edition of American Cinematographer, colorist Yvan Lucas says that the amazing saturation achieved in Tarantino's latest film "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" comes: "partly from the print stock, 2383. Kodak came out with it about 20 years ago. This film print is very colorful, and the primary colors are really separated and very pronounced. It's almost astounding. You get true red, green, and blue - and Quentin told me 'When I see those colors, that's when I know it's film.'" My question is, what exactly is meant by "separation" on a technical level? Is this not possible on digital? What qualities would this film stock have that simply shooting with 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 video wouldn't be able to achieve? I've also felt that color is what separated film from digital, but I can't seem to understand why. Does anyone have any insight into this? Would be very much appreciated!