bouncybabybucket

Well thats a relief!! What I meant was a cinematographer is the artist who controls the image; makes sure the lighting, colour etc is correct in the shot.

This may sound stupid, but I work in television and I'm a tiny bit alarmed with the way things are going. Do any of you guys believe that with the introduction of HD video production for feature films and big budget television that crews will begin to get smaller and smaller? For instance I know now that some television companies (when covering news stories) now send only a reporter with a small camera ( eg PD170 ) and a tripod. Gone are the days when every news journalist had a camera and sound person. Things have to become more cost effective. However I'm concerned that things may eventually go this way with feature film production. If a feature is being shot on HD and the studio doesn't have to worry about the cost of film stock, then is it possible they'll just hire a director and not a cinematographer? I think this would be a travesty of course, but I could see it happening.

I have to record an interview soon for eventual use on tv. Now, I have an excellent old studio camera and a very modern, cheap mini-DV camera. If I use the studio camera to shoot the interview and the mini DV camera as the recording deck (linked to the studio camera), will I lose the extra resolution of the pro studio camera by recording onto mini DV? and therefore make it pointless?

Hmmmmm..... The TV station I work for captures everything from BNC output off DVCAM. I was under the impression that Firewire was best, because it was digital to digital. Although, taking compression into consideration, which will give the best resolution??

Hi guys I am about to shoot a programme for television. I want the best quality to film the interviews and studio links. I have a fair understanding of lights and composition etc. So my question is this.... I will be filming in various surroundings from outside daylight to dim interiors and I have these cameras available to me: Canon XL1, Sony PD150 and a Sony Beta Sp camera. Which will give the best quality? I haven't actually got them at the minute or I would simply test them! So can anyone advise me which to go for?

Hi guys I am about to shoot a programme for television. I want the best quality to film the interviews and studio links. I have a fair understanding of lights and composition etc. So my question is this.... I will be filming in various surroundings from outside daylight to dim interiors and I have these cameras available to me: Canon XL1, Sony PD150 and a Sony Beta Sp camera. Which will give the best quality? I haven't actually got them at the minute or I would simply test them! So can anyone advise me which to go for?

Hi guys I am about to shoot a programme for television. I want the best quality to film the interviews and studio links. I have a fair understanding of lights and composition etc. So my question is this.... I will be filming in various surroundings from outside daylight to dim interiors and I have these cameras available to me: Canon XL1, Sony PD150 and a Sony Beta Sp camera. Which will give the best quality? I haven't actually got them at the minute or I would simply test them! So can anyone advise me which to go for?

Kubrick did over-assist his cinematographers though. I think Robert Altman was excellent and was trusted by Kubrick to do his job. I can't find fault with the majority of Kubricks work. You either like it or hate it, it's down to personal taste - though you can be sure of one thing, nothing on his films happened by accident or luck. Each movie was his own vision, they were exactly what he wanted them to be, except Spartacus of course!

On the Sony PD150, which I think is the best Dv camera out there, what is up with the Progressive Scan mode? I usually favour de-interlacing the footage afterwards anyway, but am I using it wrong or something. It is incredibly jerky, and any light source in the frame is completely messed up. I thought it was only under flouresant lights that it messed up but its anything. I've heard people buy the Canon Xl1 just for it's 'movie mode', is it as bad as the Sony? Am I doing something wrong? It's the PAL camera.

I have both tape decks and have used both extensively. I cann't see a real difference between the quality of the image. The only difference I have found is the Beta SP is far,far more reliable (in terms of drop out) than the miniDV. I need to get some film telecined and as you appreciate it isn't exactly cheap - that's why I ask.

Perhaps this has been covered before, but is MiniDV or Beta SP the best format for a telecine from Super 8 colour negative? It's a night shoot, so there'll be lots of areas of blackness. How does the resolution of the two compare? I have both players to capture from digitally and I know the Beta SP tapes are sooo much more reliable. But which is best for sheer picture quality?

Also, in Volume II, the scene in China - where the picture is extremely grainy... a friend of mine is convinced this is Super 8 blown up, in order to achieve the 70's look. I'm not so sure it looks to me like digital grading, anyone know?

So is isn't really possible to make a house interior at night with only practicals then?

i wasn't lucky enough to catch Eyes Wide Shut in the cinema, but it never struck me as having a heavy grain in it's DVD transfer.

Yeah!!! That's fantastic!! Kodak is my new best friend. John, can you advise me where I can buy Kodak Vision2 500T from? I live in Northern Ireland, it's very difficult to get Super 8 films here. The only place I can buy them is through the camera store Jessops. Any help would be muchly appreciated.

see, that's what it looked like to me as well! So what speed of film did you say that was David? ASA? Thank you so much for your advice dude.

Forgive me again, I'm basically an amateur here. There's the scene in Eyes Wide Shut, just before Nicole Kidman tells Tom Cruise about her fantasy with the sailor. They're in their bedroom, the bathroom is behind them illuminated blue. Their flesh tones are excellently well rendered. Their faces are nicely contoured, no blasts of light. Can anyone tell me (with an educated guess) what way the lights would have been set up for that shot? There seems to be lots of practical lights in the scene, what additional lights are likely to have been used and where would they be?

Eternal fountain of knowledge! Thanks John.

Hello John, I have been reading your comments for a while now, and thank you because I've learned sooooo much! I think all small filmmakers are grateful for Kodaks continuing support for Super8. I was wondering if there are any new filmstocks coming with process paid? I live in N.Ireland and it's very difficult to find a lab anywhere. By the way I hear U2's new music video is to be filmed on Super8?! This should be plugged to the limits by Kodak!

No I wont! We usually pick the strongest attribute of the movie and highlight that. I'm based in Ireland. i work for a tv station here, though we trying to get the series taken on by a bigger network. my email is jp@newwave-design.com

Hi. I have a very small independant production company called Newwave Productions. Our first project is an educational television series based on short films. Each week we take a different aspect of filmmaking and show a short which demonstrates it done right, or wrong then we have a 3D tutorial about it. Our first programme was based on film lighting. We used two movies. We are still looking for more student and amateur shorts for later in the series. If you want to send us a copy of any movies that'd be great.

There's a good talk about this on the Miller's Crossing DVD. Though I think if I remember correctly they wanted overcast skies so bad they did indeed wait for them.

Ok I've done the scene and well, it didn't work!! I should probably move this thread to the beginners section! Everything looked too well lit. I decided to film a new exterior establishing shot with a sleezy red neon sign outside the window, so on the interior I used red gels. I filmed it at f2.8 roughly, but it was too bright. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? I want a look of very dark yet still just enough to see my character. So lots of shadows. I used an Arri 800W and two Arri 500w as my main light sources. These were diffused by a large reflector. I also used some small ambient light sources to achieve backlights etc. Would anyone suggest just using the ambient sources to get the look I want? It is filmed on Super8 by the way.

This is great guys, thanks for everyone's help here - I really appreciate it. Hopefully we should be filming this on sunday, so I'll let you know how I get on.

Thanks man. However why does my camera always seem to give me a under exposed meter reading in these circumstances? I really am an amateur here so indulge me. Is this correct - I zoom in to the area i want then take it's exposure setting and, as long as its ok i dont worry about the drop off to darkness on the other zones. Is this right? The camera has a fairly fast lens f1.4, yet the overall scene is under exposed by the meter.