Alex Haspel

that's a nice idea there. what i'd try would be hanging a diffusion frame into the elevator, insted of the ceiling, and coming straight down from above on it with a rather big unit. and then i'd rig some smaller units directly underneath the diffusion frame, creating pools of light, for those hot spots mentioned above by mr. fritzshall. if the walls in the set are light enough, you shouldnt need no fill from below since the light coming trough the diffusion from above would bonce around wildy and illuminate the scene quite consistent. and at last i'd cut holes into the set's walls and put some dull/silky plexiglas or something slightly diffusing in it. (or glas with lee diffusion on it)... as practicals you could then light those from behind, from the outside of the set and motivate rims with that. or even make rims with those practicals if you put big enough units behind them. good luck anyways, show us the results.

i know that that the american system with Dop and operator(s) has its roots in the beginning time of "talkies", with the operators sitting in sauna-like blimped boxes and the Dop outside in order to oversee and control everything. .)but why was this setup kept? i mean, operating i a wonderful thing, and operating and Dop'ing dont exlude each other, do they? .)and how comes that here in europe it is common that the dop operates himself? did we leave out the era with the sauna-blimps? .) i read an interview oliver stapleton some time ago where he sais that he loves to operate, the whole haptic side of it... which i can fully understand. so, does anyone know about other succesful dop's operating themself? .)and finally: what about you?

i suppose you need a head and legs? like this: http://cgi.ebay.com/Sachtler-20-tripod-spr...1QQcmdZViewItem that would be quiet the right size for a bl.. altough i think as far as smooth operating goes, the head cant be too big. transportation -wise it's another story..... i am a sachtler fan. i like the quicklock system, which i consider as way more robust and practical as those vinten -stuff. plus they are undestroyable. i frequently work with a sachtler video30 head thats about 20 years old and has been in the desert several times, mounted on cameracars, and also used in extreme cold or humid and overall nasty conditions, and it still works better than any other head i've yet laid my dirty hands on.

well, definately not a handcranked one... you'll have a really hard time matching the music to the lips of the singer in post. i'd say that you can't really go wrong with a arri 16bl. they're undestroyable workhorses and you can also use newer lenses on them.

hello frank. i shot with a sr2 highspeed this summer, at 25 and 80fps and it always stopped when rolled out. and no, it didn't start again afterwards with no film in it. if i remember correctly, there is some kind of sensor checking if there is film somewhere before or after the gate... and i am positive that they kept that very nice feature within the sr3 a ...

id also say try to get any job inside the movie industry... even if your only a production assistant at first, you'll learn a lot from it. it gives you a feel for organisatory side of filmaking, and you get to know people (which is always good). (thanks to lucky circumstances) ive basically been growing up in a production company since i'm 14 or so... i started out as production assistant / still photographer (which slighty above an extra :)) and work as a camara assistant now (besides school, a school for photography). and for the various student films i'm shooting as dp i can also get all kinds of equipment for free, whenever it's not on the field, because those people became my friends over the years. well ... i hope that helped. good luck.

hallo markus um was für eine art lampen handelt es sich? um irgendwas halbwegs fokusierbarbares wie blondes? oder was frensnellinsiges? oder aber sprechen wir hier gar über baustellenlampen?

you could also take look at www.crewpix.com ..

exactly. the ends of the light stands legs are way too close to each other... i dont know why one wouldnt always place a light as stable as possible. (i'm not too eloquent in english, i hope you know what i mean)

looks really nice. good grading. but i would fire anyone who puts up a light stand like this: why do people do this? it's irresponsible. imagine that guy putting a 4kw on a stand thats 3 meters extended, with the legs (the stand's, not his) in that position.. uargh.

thank you! :D

my first idea would be a video beamer with a wide angle lens trough some lee diffusion.

well my first idea would be to have a beam from a very focused light source come from the projector room, fitted with some home build 'shutter'... which could easily be made from a big fan maybe? are you shooting film? if so, this idea would definately require some testing. if it's video, just put the fan or whatever 'shutter' you build on a dimmer, and play around with it until it looks good. however, i would then bounce that beam coming from behind back at the actor's faces, and probably also add a little steady fill (of the same softness), so that they wont be completely dark when the light's shutter is closed. it's just an idea. i still hope i could help. oh, and if you try this, you might also: a.) get some of the beam's light on the back of the actors heads or b.) if the above looks crappy because the beam is then too low, and extra light (which is of course hard, cause it should have the same shutter-rythm as the other one) on the back of the actors heads.... ..for a little rim so they wont drown in the background (contrast-wise).

"a day without you is like a week without shitting" oh no.. it misses the film component.. "a day without you is like a week waiting for dailies"

hi. what disturbs me about that blur is that it is in the foreground as well as in the background. this looks a bit too unatural for my taste. instead try shooting fully wide open (if the quality of your lenses allows it) and you'll have some real unsharpness if your not not going totally wide angled. and as for the lightning: my first thought was that the key light and the rim (if it is called like that in english) are both on the left side. i would have placed the key on right side, leaving the persons left side of the face (from cameras angle) darker, and have a warmer rim (probably with a half cto, considering youre shooting with tungsten lights and tungsten preset) on the left side, motivated by that practical back there. but that's just my opinion. good luck and all that, i hope you find my critique useful. -alex

i dont understand why one would prefer the video assist signal in the viewfinder, since it's surely less resolution than the 16mm material. which makes jugding the actual sharpness as projected to the film impossible.

i recently saw this movie and loved it. it was either shot with available light or lit extremely well. i really liked the look of it, so un hollywoodish. does anyone know more about it? i found out that there is an article about it in the october 2003 issue of American Cinematographer, but i havent got that one. (only sept. and nov. 03 unfortunately) thanks in advance, alex.

phew.. i might have save some money if i really decide to do a conversion,,,... anyways.. how did you solve your speed control problem?

hmm.. could you explain this further? do mean to let her act backwards? if not, i think i dont fully understand... oh, and thanks to all of you for the global brainstorming happening here!

i definately would have asked an technician, but i didnt want to risk making a fool out of myself, in case it's impossible or super-easy... so i prefered to ask here first. protected by anonymity. more or less :-) that's what i feared. but hope dies last.. at least i am now sure that it's not really an option thanks for your answers.

can the 16bl converted to super16? and is it technically possible to bring the shutter and the transport out of sync? (to get vertical lines from the highlight, like seen on some of "saving private ryan"'s battlescenes) thanks in advence

now that's a good idea. i'll definately test that in combination with the make up thing... that's right, but it has to be in color, so this is unfortunately not an option..

yes, they will be seen in another scene, that was the motivation to bleach them. well.. to be honest, i find this not radical enough.. altough the pola might be a nice addition. well, to get the contrast i'd like to have, i'd need quite a lot of light. and i think it would be cheaper to maker her lighter not with lamps but with make up. i also think that i would be more flexible, since i won't have a big lighting crew.. and location changes would take more time with one or two guys rearranging the lights than a once per day done make up would take. what i might have forgotten to say is that it doesnt need to look too realistic. if that was the case the option of lighting her was surely better...

thanks. since it's outside in the woods and the budget is tight there will only be some bounced sunlight as fill or fill from a battery powered 125w hmi handlight..

i'll be shooting an 16mm short movie in february, and there is going to be a dream sequence that the director wants to be dark and moody. now the only role in the film is an isolated living woman, and this dream sequence is the only outside shoot. there she will be sourrounded by a forest that the director wants to be really dark, almost black. since this is a really tightly budgeted shoot i want to do as much effects as possible in-camera, and i came up with the following: why not bleach her clothers and spot-measure how many stops lighter they are after that. then let the make up people make her paler for the same amount of measured stops, and underexpose (when doing a light reading) the scene for that level? she would look normaly exposed, and her whole surroundings would be a lot darker. that would also fit the "isolated" thematics quite fine, as i think... have you ever done anything like that? experienced problems? and: what other additional effect could be used, since it's a dream sequence? i was thinking of something rather subtle.. like bringing the shutter slightly out of sync (yeah, is's an old hat) to get those vertical stripes (in lack of a better word) from the highlights (which will only be on her, since everything else would be underexposed).. opinions are highly welcome