Michael LaVoie

The American Cinematographer article I referred to was called "Cutting an Effective Reel" and it appeared in the December 2000 issue. It's almost six years old but it's still very relevant information and though the montage vs complete spot style is a personal choice, I have to agree with agent Stacey Cheriff who said that "People want to see spots in their entirety, it's a rhythm they're familiar with. A montage just makes you say, 'Well that's a pretty image' but it's almost like stills. It's not motion: it's not a coherent, cohesive piece." I also agree with Allen Daviau A.S.C.- "Go with your own vision. If you chase down the marketplace and try and get this current look or that current technique, it will all be out of date by the time you get your reel out. You're better off trying to present something that coherently represents your own vision and the kind of work you'd like to do. It may not work, but at least you'll be going from your own passion and not second-guessing what people want to see."

How effective the reel is really depends on what kind of work you're seeking out. If you're looking for commercials and music video's, I'd leave the reel alone as it's really good. On the other hand, if you're seeking out independent films, there's some things I personally would change about it. The tiled transitions calls attention to how much the shots themselves have or haven't been "worked on" in post. You don't want people thinking that you've spent hours in after effects to get those images. I'd lose the transitions and the titles. Maybe try and use longer takes. American Cinematographer did a great article on how a reel should be cut together and what people are looking for in it. One of the points mentioned is this about the temptation to use montage style editing. The montage element should really only be the bandaid when you begin to run out of really great shots and it's best left at the end of the reel to pack a punch. Your entire reel is a montage and according to some quoted in American Cinematographer magazine, that could work against you.

With a 250 watt bulb, even those porcelain fixtures will heat up and when they're hot, you can easily smash them apart just by lying them on the ground too quickly. Let them cool a while before dismantling. In case you want to try a 500 watt, you should definitely go up a size or two on the lantern, not because of heat but because at 500 watts, an 18" china lantern isn't very soft anymore.

The best way to learn is by just doing it. Get yourself a Bolex 16mm camera (Reflex viewing) if you can. Next, purchase some rolls of reversal plusx or trix film (in 100 foot daylight spools). Pick up either the 16mm Camera Book by Douglas Underhall or Cinematography by Kris Malkiewicz. Finally, get yourself a light meter. Read through the books and pick up the camera and go for it. You can even get a projector on EBay pretty cheap if you later feel like reviewing the footage on a large screen. But to edit the film, unless you plan on renting a Steenbeck flatbed table, and now we're getting into an area where film school is relevant, you should probably just have the film telecined to MiniDV so you can cut it on a laptop like everyone else. But if you do nothing else, pick up those books along with the American Cinematographer manual. Good luck.

So, I got some footage back from The Wine bar. We shot with the HVX200, the PStechnick adaptor and a set of Zeiss superspeeds from Duall camera. I shot at a 1.4, rated the package at 200 and the stills you will see are from a DV copy that I received from the director so this is uncorrected downconverted SD footage. Some stills have been raised in brightness for web viewing but no more than plus 4 in photoshop. A filmout is being planned once editing completes. The master: Seths closeup for bartender interaction. He asks for a beer and is told he's in a wine bar.: Seths closeup for Evelyn's interaction: Evilyn's closeup for Seth's interaction: The boyfriend arrives: Evilyn writes him notes because she's mute: The bartender watches: Boyfriends closeup on Seth as seth reads the notes to him aloud: I'm actually missing the reverse shot of that so here's the last shot in the film when Seth is left alone and the bartender presents him with a complimentary beer for helping Evilyn This is a behind the scenes still showing left to right: Chien Huey- A.C. Christian Rembde-the director, myself, and Seth, the writer and lead actor If I had to do it over, I may have rated the package at ISO 125 instead of 200. The HD monitor showed us a lot of detail that isn't in the downconverted footage so I think we'll be okay when we transfer to film. I'll post info on that when it happens. Meanwhile, you can check out some behind the scenes stills at the website: http://www.thewinebarmovie.com/

I don't have an image to post yet. I rated the camera at 500 and lit the background with three kinos and got a F4 pretty evenly all around. I lit the subjects with tungsten and just barely got a 5.6 on my key and a 2.8 7 on my fill and a 2.87 on my backlights only they were coming through thinner diff so they looked hotter. I went from a 4 to a 4.8(camera fstop) depending on the shot. I checked my meter and it's fine. Both monitors looked almost overexposed. Yet the vectorscope readings were low. Is it that I should have rated the camera at 320? Should the greenscreen be lit above key?

My problem isn't with the Varicam, I just thought it might be too early to ask this question in the HVX forum. I had a greenscreen shoot with the HVX-200 at 60P. The director wanted a very contrasty look on the subjects. I rated the camera at 500 I used a CRT monitor and my light meter and both readings suggested to me I was exposing properly and yet the folks who were keying the image later complained that their desktop vectorscopes said the footage was a little underexposed. Not to any unusable degree but it was lower than they would have liked. I'm wondering if this is caused by lighting the subjects less evenly for a desired look? Did that throw off the editors? If not I'm wondering what may have caused this. The monitor was calibrated properly and my meter is not off. I was assuming light loss from the 60P that didn't show up on the preview. If that's not the case than perhaps I rated the camera too fast for greenscreen but then why did it look good on the monitor live? I had the shutter off on the camera. Any ideas?

Was wondering if you're shooting 60P and you're previewing the image in real time on a monitor, how can you get an accurate reading from the monitor if there's loss occuring from the 60P that you're not seeing untill you playback? What is the loss approximately? If I was shooting at a 4.8 in 24P, what would I open up to in 60P? Or is it the same as in film?

Making a film as good as Buffalo 66 proves that he has the potential to deliver a critically successful film. As far as him personally, I was a bit put off by his remark in the Filmmaker magazine interview where he referred to his first DP on Buffalo, Dick Pope as a "frightened fairy" because he was reluctant to shoot 35mm reversal stock. I respect and admire Dick Popes work greatly and it's a bit arrogant to ridicule someone for doing their job which among other things is providing sound technical guidance. Gallo replaced him and went ahead with the reversal film and nearly destroyed his project. They were barely able to strike a print.

I think how you choose a gaffer really depends on how comfortable and or interested you are in the lighting end of cinematography. Some D.P's are more interested in camera placement and lenses while they are less interested in the lighting in the scene as long as they have enough stop for focus without it being totally flat. Most good DP's pay attention to both. But it's this scale that sort of determines how much creative input a gaffer will have on the film. Is the DP more into camera or light? Camera guys rely on a gaffer that does more than handle electric. They look for someone with an eye for color and contrast and a sensitivity to the quality of the light. I really just look for a Gaffer that can safely handle the electric load on set and also has some grip experience. I'm always open to their input creatively but I don't really rely on it.

What is a home depot or other solution to a scrim. I'm trying to make a couple of open face Colortran Broad tungsten lights more safe. Not trying to save money here. I would buy scrims for these lights but I haven't been able to find them. Is there another solution?

It wasn't the resolution as much as the overall image lacking any motion artifacting and other "video" glitches. It was actually cleaner than most S16. If nobody told me, I'd assume it was 35mm. And this is with the stock lens. I have a shoot coming up with the HVX and a PS adaptor and we'll be doing a transfer. When the final results are in at the end of April, I'll post a report on it. For prices, I'd contact Postworks directly.

I saw a film out transfer of some HVX200 footage transferred to 35mmFuji print stock today at Postworks in NYC. It was way better than any DV footage I've seen transferred. Postworks has some upcoming seminars on transferring HVX200 footage. Contact em for more details. The future looks promising for this camera.

I have to come in defense of the first film mentioned in the thread. I happened to like No Such Thing. I'm a pretty big fan of Hal and I feel he makes films for a cult audience. Not really the mainstream public. It's not his best work but it's important to keep it in perspective. To a regular member of the pubic unfamiliar with his style it's a trainwreck. To those of us in on the joke, it's definitely interesting. On the other hand, I suffered through Must Love Dogs last night and I think most people probably loved it. To me, it lacked any originality and absolutely zero style to it. The only element that kept it watchable was John Cusack.

Shoot has been pushed to the 17th.

If you're on a budget like that you might want to consider buying some tungsten home depot work lights for 20 bucks a piece and spend the bulk of the dough on C-stands , flags, nets, frames, diffusion, blackwrap and gels. The grip gear and gaffing tools are really the paint brush of your lighting package anyway. More so than the actual fixture. At least this way you'll have tools to help control natural light as well when you're using daylight. China lanterns are also a wonderful softlight tool that cost very little and are extremely easy to use that is, if you have a few C-stands to rig them to.

For me, it was the year that Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction for best picture.

Madsen, David is of course correct. Studios and branches have payroll companies and it's unlikely they will issue you a 1099 as an independent contractor for your work as a D.P. For now though, while you're shooting for students and pretty much anyone who can afford a camera, you have the freedom to ensure that you are not screwed over. I can't post my own contract but you don't need it. Make a list of what you want to see happen and have a lawyer look it over.

This has happened to me enough times that I no longer make myself available for any preproduction, contact crew members or rental houses without a signed contract which states that I have right of first refusal to provide DP services on the script, and a 10 percent deposit upfront which is non refundable if the shoot is cancelled within two weeks of the start date. I also put in a clause to be granted access to a digital copy of all of the material for the purposes of a reel within one month of the wrap date and other protective clauses which keep people from screwing me over. Interest bearing late charges if theres a delay in paying me, etc. I have no agent and I'm non union so I have to watch my own back with this stuff. Just remember if you don't know, Deferred pay means free.

Sorry Everyone, I meant to post this in the General topic section. It somehow ended up here and I"m not sure how to move it over there. Anyway. . . Wondering what to go with here. I'm shooting with the HVX-200 and a Pro-35 adaptor. We're getting a good deal from Du-all but I'm not familiar with their lenses and I'm wondering if anyone out there has first hand horror stories or recommendations. The A.C. that iI end up hiring will test them at checkout but to save us time, if anyone has worked with them, I'd love to hear feedback. Zeiss Prime Lens Set 18, 25, 35, 50, 85mm T1.3 or Zeiss 16, 24, 32, 50, 85mm T2.1 or Cooke 18, 25, 32, 40, 50, 75, 100, 135mm Series 2/3

Shooting a short in NYC. One day. Paid. AC should be familiar with P&S Technic Pro-35 adaptor, and the HVX-200. Standard Cinestyle set up with mattebox, follow focus etc. Vendor is Du-All Camera. Contact me through the feature in this website.

I realize I'm viewing this film a little late and perhaps there's already been a thread for it. Has anyone else seen this? It really surprised me. I was not expecting something so arresting. Everything from camera placement to lighting, editing and the score is near perfect. I'd say Maryse Alberti hit a home run on this film.

If I was planning on using a 12x overhead outdoors and I knew that the weather was to be windy that day, at what point should I abandon the idea of the 12x because of safetly concerns. Where is the cutoff? 15mph, 25mph? I asked the folks at MSE and even they didn't know what the average wind speed limit was for their own frames. I just want to know to avoid setting it up altogether if it's just going to be a safety hazard.

If there were any chance of them viewing the final product on a HD-DVD player or a Blue Ray disc player, I'd say go for it. Otherwise, I agree that it's not worth it. Hopefully by the end of the year that format bullshit will be worked out and there will be an audience with the access to equipment with which to view material shot on HD. Till then, there isn't much point.

I don't know what kind of funds you are dealing with but if you regularly wish to make those small narrow beams and spots, I'd invest in a kit of Dedolights. They are designed specifically for that application. www.dedolight.com