Gabriel Devereux

Sir, With painting walls for a scene such as this do you have a recommendation on what paint you should use? Something such as a middle grey or a little darker?

A number of questions. I believe I’ve seen this post on Roger Deakins forums and you wanted it to be similar to The Goldfinch? Anyways. To bounce the light (Jokers) the way you said requires the lights to be higher than said wall. That wall is as high as the ceiling so I am very much confused. Maybe I’m looking at the wrong wall? Either way I have no clue what your shooting stop is or how high you can rate your camera. If you want to get the Goldfinch look without rigging to the roof you could use balloon lights... as I imagine sky panels are out of the question. However those are expensive. Through the top windows the skylights seem to be the obvious choice but I remember for some reason you can’t use those. For a far more educated and informed suggestion we need much more information. However a way that sprung to mind is you could have light coming from one of the door ways and go from there. If you do a reverse key or something to in a sense and cheat it. Who knows.

I'm sorry if I seemed aggressive. I just feel that making a statement such as that over a suspicion probably isn't the best idea. I'm not sure how things work in other cultures entirely but I know in mine if one where to be endorsed by a company or brand monetarily and continuously recommend them WHILE being considered one of the BEST in the field without disclosing said deal would be incredibly poor form and even possibly illegal? Theres nothing wrong with an artist taking a pay check, the more the better! However something of this nature is something I at least frown upon and wouldn't be too thrilled about if true. Maybe the man just prefers the Alexa? By all means the film vs digital debate is interesting! I jump from side to side daily, each day very firm on my outlook however by tomorrow it will be different! That's the nature of the beast and it's fun to discuss! However I dislike to see casual defamation of character with no supporting evidence! Other than a video of Roger liking the camera. Which I can pull a Christopher Nolan, Linus Sandgren, Damien Chazelle etc video, interview etc of them saying the same thing about Kodak so on. I hope we are artists and scientists on this forum, not conspiracy theorists!

Without evidence or proof your basically talking out of your arse. No offence intended. Would an artist, a wanky word but a word that describes someone such as Roger Deakins take a pay check to shoot on an ALEXA? Would Christoper Nolan take a pay check from Kodak and IMAX to shoot on film? The latter is far more likely seeing how far film has fallen. Will digital be able to ‘beat’ film? Yes. People are looking at digital like it’s a medium, it’s not. It’s just a series of switches that are getting smaller and smaller and faster and faster. People seem to look at digital in a way that it lacks art. It doesn’t look ‘good’. Well that’s entirely the persons fault. Unlike film which is a negative that has been designed by someone else a digital file entirely comprised of 1’s and 0’s that are entirely up to your interpretation to present in whatever form you wish. Nowadays the 1 and the 0 can be the same at the same time. Yet people still feel like they are stuck with a ‘bad’ digital image. The truth is we are just all too lazy to learn how to fix it.

Sean Bobbit Camera Image: This is a good video showing some preventative measures you can take to stop irreparable damage to yourself. Operating a camera on a shoulder has to be one of the funniest feelings however it is always much much more comfortable with back support. Lifting things as a grip, spark etc. Follow basic workplace safety such as 'lifting with your legs, not your back' (something I'm sure we've all heard before). Workout routine wise look for one aimed at fitness and core strength. A lot of workouts are designed to improve the 'look' of ones body not its capability. As far as I'm aware there a very few downsides to a good well rounded workout. For me personally lifting items such as larger fixture or being on my feet for 12 hours is not as detrimental to my health as a camera on my shoulder. The spine and the body is designed pretty well putting a 5kg brick on one half is well...

Some times I think cinematography has a likeness to Formula 1 racing (except cinematography is much more exciting). Part of it is the driving, the race. Watching and feeling the excitement of the race, the turns and the incredible amount of skill it takes from the drivers. I imagine that’s why most people watch it. But the cars are pretty cool too. Anyways the video is definitely interesting... all from such a small camera.

While where at it I’ll celebrate I’m not there as well!

Thank you for the reply! I was thinking of possibly layering black sheet with small holes, assortment of gels and then white diff. Re- photoshop and projector. Projecting onto a black sheet? I was thinking of doing that a while back but never thought it would work with the lack of reflectance. I imagine duvetyne would be too dark and matted for it. Would you by any chance know a good material?

Dear All, I recently came across the concept of having a series of small holes covered with different coloured gel on a roll or a series of large cards for bokeh in poor mans process (Poorly drawn diagram attached bellow). I have a number of questions and am looking for tips if anyone has attempted or tried and tested this method. I imagine you'd need to use quite a low powered fixture and the sheet itself would need to be quite far away from the cars back window? For white light I imagine you'd attach 216 or equivalent over one of the holes? Thanks Gabe

Not to relight this fire but... This is a painting. I knew this painter quite well and was always taken aback by the detail. It looked real, like someone had printed a photograph. I one day asked 'Why don't you just take a photo' (I was very young), he responded 'Because people can feel the difference'. Now by know means am I comparing the amount of work it takes to paint this work of art (which I may add the painter very much disliked and was pretty much forced to sign) to the amount of work it takes to shoot film. However film does take more work than digital and for that reason alone I think people can feel a difference. Now that may of been THE most wankiest pretentious statement I have ever made. Do note that I pretty much only shoot digital. One could argue the years of hard work Yedlin has put it in to make a digital negative look could be the same? Who knows.

"need to output at least 100 foot candles at 2ft, to be useable in any interviewing set up." I'd recommend something a little higher. With your Nikon be sure to test! I say this as when I owned (now) relatively old DSLR's anything over 200 ISO I considered too noisy. Do some tests rating your camera at different ISO's and choose one you consider acceptable. If you where to shoot at 400ASA 5.6 you would at least 200 for caucasian skin. So test and it's always a good idea to go with more than less. It's always easier to cut a stop than to add one.

Hey all, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this new camera https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro. I am a previous owner of the Ursa Mini Pro which was a decent camera however a little unreliable. The timing on this for me couldn’t be more perfect for me as I just finished rewatching Yedlin’s resolution Demo when they announced it. Would such high resolution at this point make any difference other than compromising the latitude and quality of said pixels? Their latitude going from 15 stops (already through my tests some pretty generous advertising) to advertised 14 stops. But still 12k resolution 12,228 x 6480. The numbers impressive at least. Gabe

Hey Larry, if im correct your diffusion panel emitting 510fc at 2ft with a -1 or 2 stop diffusion would be quite a fair bit below what your after. Even your 1058fc panel (does that output include the light cut from the diffusion. I would hope so? If not that means it’ll only output 250 fc at 2ft with it?) may be a little weak. Keep in mind 400 is for zone 5 (middle gray) if your exposing for Caucasian skin I imagine you’d want to go a stop over so that’s 800fc. That’s with the light being 2ft away from the persons face. Could you rate the camera a little higher than 100ASA? As at 400 ASA at 5.6 you only need 100FC or 200 for Caucasian skin (stop over) which is a fair bit easier to achieve. You’d have the ability to place the panel a little further away and even with the diffusion cut of 2 stops (if that isn’t included in the original output) your still safe. I hope this is helpful and I haven’t just barked up the wrong tree.

If I may chime in as an innocent bystander with pretty much no agenda or bias. I believe the Hitler and Austria comment was a joke. At least to me it was. The way you wish to interpret the joke is up to you! However to quote our past Golden Globes host "If you can't joke about the more horrendous things in the world, what's the point of jokes? Whats the point in having humour? Humour is to get us over terrible things.". Please do take what was said as light heartedly as you can! There is no point getting frustrated over something so insignificant. This forum has endless information to offer! To talk and discuss among some of the greatest cinematographers. It seems a waste to throw it all away over a joke. However that is up to you! About the criticism aspect. "The pleasure of criticising takes away from us the pleasure of being moved by some very fine things.". What strikes me as odd is you criticise something you haven't even watched. I believe we can all take criticism here, I believe it's part of our job. But even you have to admit if someone came up to you with issues with say your new film that they haven't even seen... you'd take what they say with a little less value. But what truly made me write this is. Do keep in mind David (or Mr Mullen as I call him), has taken time out of his day to help and teach other people. Answering rather advanced questions to basic ones that he answers almost weekly. Something he does continuously and something I personally have benefited and benefit from! His point of moving you to a separate thread was just so if a young aspiring cinematographer like myself where to read his thread they wouldn't have to skip over 2 or more pages of a person complaining about a tiny part of something they have not even seen.

I think it's commonly known. It's quite easy to see and feel. I remember watching a behind the scenes interview of Roger Deakins explaining why he sometimes shoots mid-close ups on a wider lens with the Coen brothers. He explained the same premise as what David said, you have a sense of presence. For an example when I look through a telescope or binoculars at a passing ship or plane I don't feel as if I am closer to it by doing so, I feel as if I'm observing it. Even though it is enlarged it doesn't feel closer so to speak. Compare that to shots in the Revenant where Leonardo DiCaprio is cm's away from the lens, it's the exact opposite. Those are extreme examples, you can gain the same effect by shooting on a 28 instead of a 35 or the reverse for the opposite effect!