Matthew J. Walker

NEVER spread canned air into any part of the camera body, only in the the magazine! Here's a quote directly from the Arriflex SRII manual If this fibre optic viewing screen is hit with compressed air it will almost definitely get damaged.

I've had a Blackmagic camera spontaneously stop reading the SSD, then begin reading it again, but unable to write any data to it. Shortly after the screen went half white with random black horizontal lines as if the zebras were picking up blown out highlights, yet only on half of the screen. Upon turning the camera off then on a few times it magically began operating normally. As If it couldn't have been any closer to a nightmare, I happened to be recording video at a location that was being rented on someone else's dime. Not fun.

Very nice images! This just blew my mind! So you're telling me I don't need to worry about that annoying 2/3 stop of light anymore because I never had the balls to use tungsten film during the day in fear that it might be a waste of film?

If the underexposed areas are too noisy, the first and most obvious approach would be to record with the lens at its widest aperture. You could also record with the lens at its widest aperture in combination with a high ISO setting, though I should note that many, including myself, would agree that bumping up the ISO is a very lazy thing to do and doesn't create a very attractive result most of the time. Now if you are not using a fast lens, or perhaps you are using a fast lens yet the shadows are still far too underexposed for the sensor to pick up cleanly, the two arguably best options would be to completely clip the shadows off in editing or add fill light to bring up the exposure of the dark areas in real time. You could even try using a low contrast filter in front of the lens. They were used religiously in the film days to pull more detail out of the shadows. The most valuable thing I've learned even with my intermediate experience, is that you can ask all the questions you want, and you can get all the answers you ask for, but you don't really fully learn it until you test the waters. You can only visualize. And since every camera sensor handles light differently, you should certainly test the waters.

Yeah that really isn't too bad. Most Steadicam shots are probably around, say, six feet from the actor. So a four foot depth of field actually gives a lot of room to play. More than one would have expected, or maybe just more than I would have expected. You also have to consider what lens is to be used. It is well known that modern glass is obviously very consistent as it's machine made whereas older lenses are handmade, so I suppose this would fall into what one would probably call lens theory. Sorry Joshua Silverlock if you haven't disowned this thread yet, we sort of hijacked your post, though It's in the best interest of your project I promise! *Ignores original post to read all of the overtly entertaining debates*

This is true. I have experience filming digitally at f/1.8 with focus peaking on and it was still difficult to maintain focus. You sort of have to do several takes regardless of whether or not you thought the take appeared sufficient. It may have appeared to be in focus on a seven inch monitor, yet when you begin editing you realize it isn't quite in focus. That's where the extra good takes come in handy. Then with film it becomes a different story. At the very least his camera will ned an HD video tap or some sort of homemade video tap. He can't control the lighting, therefore he must shoot wide open, especially if the street lamps are sodium vapor so he needs to worry about focus.

How the director perceives body language should be, how the director perceives words should be spoken, or how the director perceives someone should react, are all behaviours that are acted out by actors that would not have acted in such a way that a different director was directing the picture. So the picture is a reflection of everything including the directors work, yet a director is not an artist?

The quote "Fake it 'till you make it" mindset is not very beneficial in the entertainment industry. It just wouldn't work. Maybe for Soundcloud rappers.

@Phil Rhodes is right it's the LEDs. It usually happens with those cheap string LED lights used for Christmas trees or outdoor decoration. In fact it's not just cameras that pick this up, but rather the human eye picks this up as well. For those who don't believe me, buy a set of LED string lights, set them up in a dark room, then wave your arm left and right in front of yourself and you will actually see this ghosting yourself in real time.

I'm no professional, but definitely don't use 250D for night scenes unless you want an overly warm look (Assuming you're shooting under soft white light). Otherwise you'd need an 80A filter, effectively losing two stops of light. At that point you're at 64 ASA. Not fun. You'd be better equipped if you shot the whole thing on tungsten film, because daylight scenes would only require an 85 filter in which case you would only lose two thirds a stop of light and you'd still be at 125 ASA which is actually a very tame and versatile speed to be working with in daylight. As for image continuity between 200T and 250D in particular, there really is no visible difference. When you add 50D, 500T, etc. into the mix, then you really have to think about continuity. Here's a reply @David Mullen ASC wrote to a similar question I had asked a short while ago. Yeah, the guy knows a thing or two...

When examining the image, It's safe to assume the camera was balanced at 3200K judging by the actual light bulb, which looks to be a clear, non-frosted forty to sixty watt soft white light bulb. Accordingly, when looking at the reflection on the left side of the eyeglasses, I can see it matches the color of the light bulb nearly perfectly. So the key light is also around 3200K. It's difficult to tell where exactly the back lights are positioned, but it's rather obvious there is one on the left and one on the right. I believe the lights were the typical cool blue color before later being shifted more towards the warmer end while editing. I say this based on the color of the blue books, the lampshade, and the cool back lights all having a similar shade of blue. One could argue the blue books having a similar color to the light source could simply be the light source hitting the books which sounds like a valid point at the surface, however when looking at the white and red books, it is evident they haven't been affected by the light source nearly as much as the blue books appear to have been. So essentially I see a camera set to 3200K, a tungsten balanced key light on his left side, a cool blue side light on his right side, as well as stronger cool blue light illuminating the books and a little shifting of the blues during the editing process. I'm sure there were some more smaller and larger light sources around as well, maybe even a light pointed at the ceiling acting as sort of a top fill light.

Thank you Steve for both your posts and your patience with my questions!

I remember around this time many photographers, especially landscape photographers on YouTube began shooting on stills film and comparing them to digital. As you know, YouTube has a great deal of influence on my generation, particularly people born in the mid to late 90s and early 2000s so all of these people who were subscribed to these channels were blown away by how, to not start an argument I'll use the word "stylistic" the film looked when compared to the digital image. This took on a life of it's own and although a finite amount, some YouTubers started even shooting motion picture film, primarily on cameras like the Bolex H16 or the Krasnogorsk 3. If I'm not mistaken, later that year the word "Cinematography" also became more and more prevalent on YouTube as loads of channels began to upload these quote "Cinematography breakdown" videos where they would show old movies, and essentially only point out the framing of the shot, without any emphasis on lighting, set design, or direction. I use quotes because in many of these "Cinematography breakdown" videos, the actual cinematographer of the picture was never mentioned, but rather the director. However, it brought new eyes and a whole new generation one step closer to filmmaking. Remember now, before film sort of had this online resurgence, people used to think of film as very blurry scratchy footage until these videos wised them up by saying "By the way there were no digital cameras when this movie was made it was shot on film". It's something so obvious to people like us, but never crosses the average movie-goer's mind. I personally think a generation that has been so subconsciously domesticated to take a photo and naturally plug a camera into a computer, or transfer it through wifi, etc., to the point at which the idea that something that is so mechanical, something physical, or even something perishable can look in some cases better than their modern counterpart is very intriguing to my generation and every one thereof. I know this is why everyone wants to shoot film now. I remember speaking to a woman on the phone at Visual Products last year when looking to purchase my SRII and she told me she is excited by how many young people are purchasing film cameras. It's safe to say this affected the market and the prices are now gauged.

Broken down brilliantly. One last question. Here you say while running the camera, the sync box adjusts the frame rate either using a cable, or like in my case, the provided magnetic pickup while at the same time one would adjust the timing of the electron beam using the phase knob to get each shutter revolution opened and closed so that the electron beam starts and ends perfectly from the top and bottom of the screen without the beam going back to the top a second time during one exposure. However, here you say a prerequisite of filming a CRT television is that you need a 144 degree shutter. I think I'm sort of answering my own question here but does this mean that even with the sync box, a 180 degree shutter is just simply too long of an exposure to fulfill that precise window of exposure needed to film the CRT tv right when the electron beam begins and ends without a second partial electron beam exposure? Or maybe I'm a moron considering you've written to me a proper explanatory essay on CRT televisions/monitors, yet I'm still in enough denial to ask another question.

💀 This made me laugh.

It's my understanding that to eliminate roll bar from a CRT or 'Tube' TV, one can use the combination of a 23.967 framerate and a 144º shutter. This specific combination, of course, only works with NTSC (60Hz) televisions only. The other PAL (60Hz) methods obviously don't pertain to my situation. Anyway, It just so happens I will be filming a CRT TV, however I own an Arriflex SRII which has a fixed 180 degree shutter. I am able to use a speed controller to set the framerate to 23.976 but that alone won't exactly fix the problem, but rather keep the black bar in a fixed location. I want to eliminate the black bar entirely. It occurred to me that this wasn't a possibility, until I researched the problem quite a bit and actually found out there is actually something called a Film/Video Synchronizing Control Box. At my first uneducated glance I thought it was some outdated equipment which was probably used to change the framerate of cameras before we had framerate controllers. Then the size of the thing struck me and I thought "Maybe this isn't simply for only framerate" because there's no conceivable way to describe going from a giant box to change the framerate to only years later the speed controllers we all know and love that can all fit in the palm of your hand. That's just not the way technology progresses. So after more research, and finding a couple instances of people vaguely talking about how they used to use these sync boxes 'back in the day', I seemingly submitted to the fact that this thing can actually do what it says. But I still just couldn't understand how people can make the claim that this thing could sync any camera with a CRT TV when not every camera has an adjustable shutter. That was until I found this post on here from back in March of 2018. This actually makes sense, given how cathode ray tubes are sensitive to magnetic fields. Now before anyone dismisses the Film/Video Synchronizing Control Box, I should probably point out a few ways I will not settle for fixing the problem. 1. No I do not want to green screen the tv, even with artificial light to suggest television glow. It never looks real. 2. I don't want anything shot digitally, especially since the cost of a digital camera is more than that of the sync box. 3. I can't afford renting another film camera that has an adjustable shutter for merely one or two shots. I have considered number one as an option in the past for shots of the television screen only, however one also runs into the problem of the glass reflection not being there. And probably the biggest problem is my idea of a wide shot of the actor watching the television from across the room, both the television and the talent visible in the frame. Now while real television glow is nowhere near enough for a key light, it would have still been present in the frame thus casting some type of glow that would reflect near objects, even the slightest bit. I went a little off track as I often do, so here are my two questions. How does the Film/Video Synchronizing Control Box actually work? Can someone who has used this before please explain the setup and operation in detail? If applicable to my situation I'd love to own one.

Very attractive lighting. I believe it was Dean Cundey who once said something along the lines of someone asking him once "Well where is the light coming from?" to which he responded to them "The same place the music comes from". It's refreshing to see something stylishly lit in 2020 where many people seem to digest the whole "practical lighting" thing in a far too literal context.

This is for some reason an incredibly annoying trait I find most young people possess. hardly anybody around my age is willing to take risks and fail, which inevitably is the only way to learn unless of course paths are crossed with a more wise person who can spot a dent. Now, this may simply be people blowing smoke up my ass, or me blowing smoke up my own ass, however... more often than not, people of my age are impressed with things I do that are, at least what I believe to be things that are not difficult to do. From something I built, or did, or wrote, or a moderately though-out idea, that people not much older than me are frankly not as impressed with because they've seen it built, or done, or written, or thought of before. Nothing more than problem solving things. And of course being in my twenties, this happens to be the age range I am also subjected to work with. It's no wonder many young people give up before they even get a foot in the door. It's sort of comedic in a way because being in our twenties we don't really have much to lose. I know I don't. *Cut to me working at McDonalds in 2035* Seriously though people my age like to talk but don't like to walk. Well in any event, more room for me!

@David Mullen ASC gives a pretty insightful, and I think, tremendously rational timeline of what anyone aspiring to be in the industry should see regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion, or morals in the sense that one should be prepared for it to take much longer than they would probably like yet not let it discourage you from staying full steam ahead. Actually right now there's more diversity in Hollywood than ever before. Back on topic. I can also agree with@Tyler Purcell. Being in the city of topic is undoubtedly giving him a first hand look at the state of the industry right now, most likely influencing what shaped his answer. One could also say while the average young person's relocation would normally play out like a game of chess, anyone's relocation in the current climate would probably play out more like a game of chess against a chess hustler in the middle of Union Square. You sort of lost before you even lost.

I can't tell if this is satire or sarcasm but I like it.

Funny you mention skid row. I once had the bright idea of making a music video for a rapper for free who I saw perform at a club my friends and I went to. The guy's Instagram was strange and full of weird posts that didn't make any sense. Sort of like a manic person's diary who overly liked dark subjects. Ignoring my instinct, I liked his style and his music so I went out of my way to write up a script, gather friends as actors, and hired a gun-fanatic guy from my local gym as security, brought my steadicam rig, the whole nine. In any event it turned out to be what felt just like a setup in the middle of skid row so I booked it and he was in my rearview mirror. Not a fun place to be at 10PM.

I would just go for it. I drove there with $2500 in my bank account, no work lined up, no place to live. I got a hotel for a week, during which I searched extensively for rooms for rent where I eventually found a place for rent for $680 dollars per month, month-to-month rent meaning no contract. I could have stayed as long as I wanted because I found it actually much cheaper to live there than back at home. I find the people who say it's a tough city to merely "get by" in are the same types of people who get right out of film school in L.A. with big dreams and unrealistic expectations, which is fine, but subsequently handle their lack of work as "rejection" as oppose to a sign that they need to work harder. I was willing to live in my car at any moment that's how much I wanted to be there at the time. My grandfather always says "Go with your gut" and "You don't know until you try". And he's always right.

I lived in Los Angeles for two years. I always tell people, I've gotten more done in New Jersey, yet I learned more two years in L.A. than I've learned nineteen years in a small town. You meet many characters in Los Angeles however the best advice I was ever given during my stay was "You have to have something to offer". How I took that statement was "Sure anyone can live in Los Angeles, but anyone can also make a film anywhere."

I'm in Ocean County. Roughly ten miles south of Toms River.

If anyone in New Jersey wants to film something short or simply even connect on any basis let me know. Especially but not limited to someone who knows how to properly record sound. At the moment I'm in essence a student of filmmaking, however I will be self-financing and directing my first feature length film this summer that I wrote which will be shot on only super 16mm film so if that interests anyone let me know. I do have two spare rolls of 250D if anyone wants to film something really short, because I'll probably be using majority of the first roll for lighting tests and various other quirky tests. In any event... I'm here.