Michael LaVoie

It's also refreshing when a film is set in the past but doesn't have to look retro. A good example is Dazed and Confused. Did you ever doubt it was the 70's because the cinematography was non-obtrusive and employed current methods and style. No. It was the story and characters that kept you interested. A movie like Lovelace by comparison was a bit offputting. At least to me because of the heavyhanded style of it with the grapefruit sized grain and washed out color. It felt really forced. So I just thought I'd present the other side of the argument to keep a story set in the past, current in it's look so that it's less distracting.

It depends entirely on the style. Wes Anderson, for a few films used a 40mm lens almost exclusively. But his look is extremely signature and not at all an example of the standard way of doing things. Hal Hartley, when he started out was using a 50mm for pretty much everything and his philosophy was to keep a particular vision and the single lens helped achieve that. No idea if he'll employ that tactic on his new film Ned Rifle. But for most films, you vary it up. Establishing shots are typically done with a wide lens of 24mm or greater. Mediums are done with a 35-50 and closeups typically an 85mm or longer. But everyone has different preferences and the distance from the camera to the subject does affect this choice because it determines how wide or tight the frame will be with that particular lens.. Can you use a 24mm on a closeup? Sure. But it will likely resemble an early Terry Gilliam film. Hope that helps.

The first name that comes to mind when I think of a british indie DP is Dick Pope. To get in contact with his or anyone's agent you'd want to set up an IMDB pro membership. That's supposed to offer you agent information on people. No idea if they'll call you back but it's one method.

But if you don't have HMI's and If all you got are "2 2K's and some 650's" you can send 4x bead board way up and shine the 2k into it. Gives you a very large overall even soft source that's a little harder than a booklight. Which I think looks better at night. Matter of taste. . HMI's can be costly. Par cans on the other hand are also a great way to light up backgrounds and distant objects without running a ton of cable. Get some vnsp bulbs or med spot bulbs and you're good. They may not have the cooler temperature but they're super cheap and some 500wt ones will be easier on the gennie.

Try a test of this whole set up with one subject in a chair outside at night. Play with gels and menu settings (if you're shooting digital) till you get exactly the color contrast you're looking for or not looking for. Then grade it in post and see what you get. That's the easiest way to know for sure.

It depends. Most of the time a full blocking rehearsal with the talent in the space you're working in will give you a much better idea of the shots you're after than trying to storyboard it. Because you can walk around with a camera and just take shots and set up your camera frames and see it happen right in front of you. Then you make your shotlist based on what you've setup. I find storyboards are more helpful if you're doing greenscreen and you're dealing with backgrounds that aren't there, or are more abstract. Or if your'e building sets on a soundstage. That's when storyboards are useful to every department cause they have something visual to build on that isn't actually already there. For action scenes and fight scenes storyboards are very handy and can really economize what you're shooting. Also for commercials they are critical because in commercials you only have 30 seconds and you need to really economize how you tell the story. You don't always shoot standard coverage in TVC's.

I'm surprised there isn't a push for 4K home theater projection the way there has been for 4K TV's since short throw wide projection is the fastest way to see a real difference. Currently there's nothing on the market for 4K projection that's even remotely affordable. I've had a 720p projector for about 6 years now and 1080p bluray is still amazingly sharp at 150". Enough to see unwanted detail like bad makeup etc. I can only imagine how worse it's going to look when it's 4 times sharper.

When I get a script, before I read it, I'll ask a director to play the role of producer for a minute and pretend they have their pick of any director to direct their film. Who would they pick? Usually I get a pretty good idea of what they're going for in the tone and look. Then I ask for a cast wish list so I can read characters with the right sort of personality attached etc. When the film is done, where would it fall if you were to look it up on Netflix? When it comes to indie art film, I think there's an unfortunate corollation between how a film looks and how it's perceived. Almost all of the really successful indie breakout films have a look that makes them stand apart. Sometimes the results are interesting and other times they feel very tired. Brick is a good example of using really beautiful and imaginative choices in the cinematography that seem carefully planned. Requiem for a Dream being another. But often that standard handheld look which I find really annoying like on Blue is the Warmest Color, Dallas Buyers Club etc. is the prevailing model in indie film. It's almost something required. Like the film has to feel "authentic" and therefore the cinematography must feel like so many indie films before it. I'm not criticizing either film as they both look great and I think the DP's did an awesome job with each. This is a more general criticism. i"m disappointed a little when a film opens with a character that's just sitting there and the camera is shaking cause it's handheld when it obviously doesn't need to be. Fine for scenes where tension is needed but it is something that's so overdone and at times, it feels like a formulaic language necessary because of the perception of the film as "indie". It makes me wonder whether the producers rep was in charge of these decisions. "It's gotta seem Indie folks. Absolutely no camera support of any kind"

A wooded area at night would be mostly a colder moonlit look. Often it's hard sources from as high up as you can get em. Like an HMI Par way up in the back. You can fill in faces with daylight Kinos to match the light. The reason I recommend cooler lighting is because there's no motivation for warmer light such as a streetlight or cabin etc. Your base look at night in nature is cool. Then you can add flashlights or fire or any number of practical lights. Car headlamps etc and there will be some contrast in the color. Which is a more traditional look.

True, the majority don't, the argument can be made that people sometimes pirate indie films due to a lack of access to actually view them. Indie films often suffer from poor distribution. Hal Hartley, when asked about fans uploading Trust to Youtube said "I don't care about pirating. I care about quality" Meaning he didn't want fans to see the film in poor resolution etc. Of course he'd prefer people buy the film but at the time he couldn't even sell it to them. The main reason it was uploaded was cause the company that owned the film wouldn't sell him back the rights to distribute and it was out of print. So even the filmmaker couldn't get it out to an american audience. There are other cases like that where the standard distribution model fails the filmmaker because of companies going under licenses changing hands or netflix etc refusing to stream the actual unedited version of an out of print movie that fans want to see etc. Political censorship in some countries etc. I agree with Mark that we need an app like distribution model. I can stream Gravity over Amazon for $4,99 That's more than it would have cost me to rent it from Blockbuster back in the day. The pricing for digital streaming is all wrong and definitely part of the problem.

The one major drawback to using available light is the potential for a partly cloudy day. Which can mean drastically changing light levels that will go up or down several stops within a take due to clouds passing over the sun. You're best bet is to shoot all of the stuff facing the windows and with windows in the shot first, get those shots out of the way, then black out the windows on the inside and finish the scene in peace using all your own lights so there's consistency to the levels from that point on.

Is the point of it, what to do about the windows? Cause above the table and for the subjects there's a few ways to light it depending. The short answer with the window situation is that you can use curtains inside rather than duvatine outside and "black out" the windows via art direction and set design. As opposed to the traditional commando cloth on the outside of the window. If you're 8 floors up and can't access the outside of the glass. One main difference between movie sets and practical locations is very often practical locations are missing key elements of set design. Window dressing being one of them. So if there's nothing on the insides of those windows, no shade, no drapes, nada, have art buy or put something up there cause it probably looks awkward anyway just as bare glass with nothing. If you can't dress the windows inside either you can gel the glass to make the outdoors appear blue and balance picture for tungsten but if you can't black them, I'm guessing you can't gel them either. It may or may not have the desired effect either based on the look of the outdoors on the day of the shoot. Whether sun is kicking in directly etc. Also gel on windows, if done improperly can look horrible. Another option is to balance picture for the outdoors, warm up the inside lighting considerably and plan to cool it all down later in post or in camera.

If the film doesn't have production insurance, I would request a contract stating that at the very least, production will pay the deductible on your equipment policy for renting your gear. Even if your gear is covered, you'd still have to pay the deductible if a mishap occurred. That can be up to $1,000 in some policies. You should also raise the rental fee a slight bit to cover the fact that they are saving money by using your insurance. If this is a short film, you can usually get by. If it's a feature, I'd raise a few concerns. Once you explain that without insurance they can't rent any gear from rental houses, rent picture vehicles, get shooting permits, parking permits or other legal paperwork, it becomes obvious that they'll need to do it. At least, in the US, it's like that. Not sure about Sydney. Insurance also covers liability which a personal gear rider usually doesn't.

Since you said it's been a while, I'll remind you that on a feature the most important thing is speed. Working very very quickly and being able to change lenses in no time, dump footage, change cards, batteries. All that stuff. This is where DSLR type rigs will cause you nightmares time and again. You'll pull you hair out by day 4. The devil is in the details. You want lenses with the same frontsize that are all geared up. A swing away mattebox that fits every lens without the need for 8 or 9 doughnuts, Lots of batteries. Etc. All the accessories and what not have to work 100% of the time. Strictly because it's a feature and there's no time for any technical foulups. If it's a makeshift legolike hodgepodge of crappy gear breaking down on you consistently, you'll have a lot of raised eyebrows onset. I don't know if you already own all the camera accessories for a feature but by the time you purchase the right gear for it, you could have bought a much more expensive camera. For this reason, I recommend renting. Unless you can find a 1st A.C. out there with an actually solid and fully equipped, working camera package.

Adrian mentioned libraries right next to Hulu, Netflix. Libraries are interesting to the discussion. I have a library system in my area that's interconnected by town and I can call up online almost anything on DVD and have the film shipped to my local library. If they don't have it, they'll order it. That's a one time purchase that hundreds if not thousands of library users will get to exploit for free from that point on. Most of the films aren't even bought. They're donated. It's different in principle of course to bit torrent software, but practically speaking it's not much different for someone who's looking to view a film for free. A one time purchase or donation leading to many user experiences resulting in zero profit to the content creator except for that one time purchase by the library or consumer. Why are we not going after libraries or the people that donate to them? Most people have a strong appreciation for the services of their local library. Will this respect still be there if all the content is digitized? Or will it turn into bitter resentment? It throws a wrench into the debate for sure. Getting a film, CD or book from my library is okay because I have to get in my car or on the subway to get the disk or book rather than sit on my couch and enter my library card number and download it. Either way it still means no money to the production company or publishing house. So how do we protect content creators in the future? Another great quote from Moby is "Trying to monetize digital content is like building a hotel on quicksand" Again, I'm not defending people who rip and upload or distribute copyrighted work. Not at all. Just mentioning that public libraries, if they were digital, would pose a serious question to the problem of how to protect content creators.

All valid points. Totally understand. With the Radiohead In Rainbows example, I was just trying to echo a point I heard Moby make once that people will pay for content that they like. Even when it's available for free.

Radiohead did release their work for free. In Rainbows was available on their website in HQ to download free of charge before it was available for sale in stores. It was still their best selling album to date. Just throwing it out there that this idea that once something is available for free, it's death to the revenue stream can be wrong. It can go the other way.

I don't think anything should be given away for free. Not at all. Digital content however should be priced with the elimination of the hard costs associated with the actual physical book, CD, DVD whatever. Most of the time it is. Sometimes however it's the same and that's where there's an issue.

That's a very good point and one I wouldn't argue. I just know plenty of musicians who are all for copyright protection of their work but who are torn by this argument because they would never want someone to lose their home or have their wages garnished simply cause they wanted to hear their music.

I understand charging exhorbitant penalties to those that rip and upload someone's copyrighted work. Downloaders however, who aren't also sharing the files, should be simply charged the manufacturers retail msrp of what they downloaded. That seems like a perfectly reasonable "penalty". Along with perhaps state tax in the area they're living. Nobody would suggest charging someone $5000 for stealing a DVD at the mall. So why put someone who's probably already broke in debt for downloading a movie online? The punishment should be relative to the infraction. I don't endorse downloading. I do however think that digital content needs to be given a different pricing structure altogether. As should movie ticket prices. There is no longer any 35mm print to package distribute, duplicate and ship. Theaters and distributors are saving a fortune. And yet we're not seeing any savings passed along to the consumer who's going to the theater. Ticket prices only rise. Same with music. Why are we paying a dollar a track as if it's a CD when there's no CD to create and ship any longer. There's no real world physical cost to the distribution and the consumer never sees any of that savings. This is true of ebooks as well.

Not sure if you're planning to shoot anything scripted but when I was a student and we shot on film, even our Bolex's were outfitted with accordion style matteboxes. Nothing super fancy. Most of them didn't even hold filters. Just something meant to protect the lens from light hitting it and washing out the image. The one thing you would want on any camera if you're concerned about image quality is accessories for controlling the light hitting the lens. Mattebox, eyebrow, 4x4 filters etc. Even 100 ISO can be too bright for some DSLR's on a sunny day. There are screw on variable ND filters but that still won't help with ambient light hitting the front of your lens and washing out your image. Best thing for lenses of 24mm or wider is to employ a mattebox 4x4 nd filters and hard mattes. If you're using 35mm or longer, you can get by with long lens hoods to help get rid of that light that may be hitting the glass and reducing your contrast,making the image look soft and flat. That's the best solution but it costs a bit. One benefit to making your camera bigger and heavier with accessories is that you'll get a much more stable image when you handhold it. T

I've worked with a number of 1st a.c's over the years and one thing I noticed is that they all move up very fast. It's like I'll find someone good and work with them for a little while and then suddenly they're in the union and on a show like Law and Order or Boardwalk Empire etc. Like within a year of knowing them they become unaffordable and unavailable. So if the option is open to you maybe nyc is a better bet for breaking in as a camera trainee.

If that Amazon bundle of Gorilla covers material in both MM budget & scheduling, it's significantly cheaper than Movie Magic. Thanks for the recommendation..

I think the showreel is mostly a way to weed out DP's who's work is obviously bad or nowhere close to the project. Once you narrow it down, selection becomes a much more personal thing. Who can you see yourself working with for months straight 12 hours a day? That's a choice every director has to make and it's not easy. To base it solely on work styles can however be shortsighted. Bill Pope shot Fur cause he got tired of shooting "Guys running around in tights". I have to give credit to Steven Shainburg the director, part for choosing him. He could have said, He's an action movie DP. No way. Fur looked beautiful too. Proving that a DP shouldn't be pigeonholed by their body of work. What's funny is that Robert Downey Jr. right after Fur went the other direction and did Iron Man cause he "got tired of his movies only being seen by 5 people".

Ha. Yeah but then you're only hope is working for others who have learned how to sell. I recognize that it's a completely different skill set and you need the personality for it, which I definitely don't have. There's creatives and there's the people who excel at the business end of things and unless you're good at both, you need to partner up with someone who's got the skills you're lacking. One thing that's really pissed me off about the whole online video thing are these companies that have tried to franchise the industry and do national sales of b2b videos. They get content creators to sign up and then they try to pay them ridiculously low rates cause they're charging their customers pennies for commercials that should cost 10x or more. So the freelancers doing all the work make obscenely low rates. Demand Studios , Mopro and countless other online video companies like em are driving down the value by offering videos for a fraction of what businesses would normally pay a local production company to do them for. One thing I'd definitely advise is to stay away from that kind of business model. Fight back by finding your own way and getting your own clients and charging the actual fair market value that the work is worth. Not the slave wages that ehow.com is offering.