Michael Totten

I'm on a small documentary project that's traveling all around the world. Is there such thing as a C-Stand that will fold up or break down for easy travel on a plane, train and automobile.

We've been renting locally... but sometimes it's more of a pain to find a grip house in some of these remote locations than it's worth.

thanks.

If you're worried about showing an actress' age, I would go heavier than opal. Even doubled it's barely anything. I'd do 250 if you want to keep it on the doors (i.e. not move to a frame of something)

I think you're right. We'll have a bunch of different diffusion on the day.

thanks guys.

I used to shoot a show with this exact setup (and similar constraints) every week, in different locations.

 

My approach was two chimeras basically "cross-keying" the setup; a little behind each person's head so that the keylight for one person was the backlight for the other. "Feathering" the edge of the beam spread by tilting the chimera up slightly helped keep the backlight from being too hot. In tight spaces sometimes we'd have to set a 2x3" silk as a bottomer. Both chimeras were boomed over from the "master shot" side so that the stands were out of frame. Whenever possible I'd favor the chimeras just slightly opposite the subjects, so that their key light was "short-sided" just a little and became a little bit of a rim for the wide shot. I also kept them as low as possible to become as frontal as possible on the subjects. Overhead lighting is generally NOT good for hiding age -- you don't want any raking "relief" on wrinkles and texture; you want to fill it in from the front. If someone's facial structure looks better with a higher key light, then be prepared with a (soft!) frontal beauty light to fill in any lines or wrinkle. Set that level by eye.

 

For fill light I used a Diva perpendicular to the cross-keys, from what would be your "master" side. For a "beauty" light I used a tweenie with a custom-built softbox *just* below the lens of the closeup camera, dimmed by eye. The softbox allowed me to highlight just the face without spilling light or shadows on the rest of the set.

 

All three cameras wore Soft FX diffusion, and the closeup camera had a slightly more dense grade (shooting on digibeta).

Michael thanks for the detail description. Very helpful.

Your setup is very close to what we were initially talking about.

Our setup is currently this:

Instead of the keylight playing double duty as the backlight we opted to use 1K's mounted on the ceiling rafters as our backlight. We have 1K's cross keying which we'll blast through doubled opal. For the frontal fill we'll be using china balls or perhaps kinos.

The lights will be mounted out of the shot, up on speed rail.

I'm questioning the opal though... it might be better to go with a more heavy diffusion.

How about a Jem Ball in the middle of the 2 subjects just above frame?

Nice soft light on both of them. You could clip some net or ND to the interviewers side to bring them down a bit and give you a little overexposure on the lady in question.

A few C stand arms or a goal post should get you clear of being in shot.

Yeah I actually have a couple china balls in my kit that I could use. What's the difference between a china ball and a gem ball ? It looks like the gem ball is just built to last but that the light they produce is very similar.

thanks.

Search the cml archives for "nets", there's been long threads on that subject including very specific recommendations of which brands and styles of women's hose to use. The old school way of making an older woman look good is the use of nets, usually behind the lens. Make her look good and she'll remember you.

Unfortunately we're shooting on three HVX-200's with the fixed lens. I thought about using 35mm adapters (which would certainly soften her in an appealing way) but it's hand held / shoulder mount. I guess I could've used the "net" trick with an adapter as well... but with the fixed lens that won't work.

Does anyone have an example of how they would light a 3 camera interview.

Cam 1: Medium two shot, profile (main)

Cam 2: Medium OTS C/U on subject

Cam 3: Medium OTS C/U on interviewer

Also, the subject is a celebrity musician who is somewhat of a diva and is VERY concerned about her age showing.

I keep thinking soft overhead light will be the most forgiving for her. Perhaps I could build a 20' out of speed rail and use kino flo's through quarter grid.

Thanks in advance.

you really can´t take THREE lights ?

That's what I said to the producer. :lol:

I'm sure I could bring an arri kit... the problem is that then I have to search around for 220 globes which are kind of hard to come by last minute... although I did find 2 of the 3 that I would need from "Visions of Color". The other thing about the arri kit is that the brightest light is a 1K and a lot of the time that's not enough....It's hard to say when I haven't been to the locations.

My gut says an 800 joker bug would do the trick. Someone mentioned a 400 as well. I think I'll probably end up going that way.

If you had to choose one light to travel with for two weeks in the UK/NY that would be used primarily for sit down "talking head" interviews, what would it be? I'm thinking of an 800 HMI, which works well in most any situation.

We did shots like this by taking out the front passenger's seat and using a short leg tripod & head. This was lashed down onto the seat mounts in the floor, there wasn't any room for an operator, so it camera was just locked off after the framing was checked before each take.

 

You don't say which camera you're using, this will affect where you can mount a camera because of the space limitations .

We're using the red camera, which is fairly compact.

I did this exact setup two weeks ago using a DVX-100. I used a suction cup on the windshield with a short arm to the cheese plate. I used a second suction cup with a longer arm coming in at an angle as a second point. Then I took another arm with a maffer clamp down to the frame of the seat. It was very solid and we got everyhting we needed.

 

I might have some photos of the setup. If I find them, I will post them here.

Good Luck

Brian

Nice. Where did you guys rent (or buy) the gear for the mount? I was thinking of buying from filmtools in LA.

I couldn't find any other threads about this particular kind of set up.

Basically the whole scene will take place in the back seat of a car.

No camera movement.

So the camera needs to be mounted in the front center part of the car somehow (pointed straight back and center). preferably as close the the front (windshield) as possible so that there will be more room lens wise.

The camera operator will be seated in the front passenger seat and then there will be a driver in the drivers seat (I know this takes up needed room) ?

Any ideas?

Suction cups, c-stand arms and cheeseplate?

The shallow depth of field from the fast speed helps; also, mechanically, they rack in and out of focus in a smoother way, more like cine lenses. The way lights look in the out of focus b.g. looks more traditional. But I can't say for sure that they are radically better than the new Fujinon primes, not having tested those.

 

HD has less resolution than 35mm, so I think it looks soft on the big screen compared to 35mm. So a sharp lens that is fast is a good thing.

 

But HD, maybe due to the limited latitude or the nature of a CCD, whatever, does look less flattering, more "edgy" in close-ups (even with the edge enhancement turned off), hence why a little mild diffusion may help -- but due to the generally soft look of HD-shot movies on the big screen, I'm a firm believer in not overdoing the diffusion.

Thanks David.

Yes.

Thanks David.

Curious what the advantage is using a Zeiss digi-Prime or perhaps the Zeiss Digi-Prime 6-24mm zoom over let's say other cine-style lenses such as the Fujinon C or E-Series Cine Zooms.

The thing that attracts me to the digi-primes is that they open to a T1.6, but beyond that what is the difference? Some people say they're more "film like"... it confuses me though as I hear they're much more SHARP. To me sharp feels like video.

I guess you can get a shallower depth of field in certain situations because they're faster? so that's the more filmic characteristic ?

thanks,

michael

Wondering how digi-primes translate to 35mm. I've heard it's 2.5 times. Is this correct?

For instance... A 24mm digi-prime would be the equivalent to a 60 mm lens in 35mm ?

Looking for a skilled and experienced 1st A/C who can pull focus remotely.

This is a two day local music video shoot that will take place on stage or

directly outside of the stage (no company moves).

Shooting day into night on both days.

Shooting Dates: Sunday Oct. 7th & Monday Oct. 8th.

A large portion of the shooting will be handheld and will take place in

minimal light. Not only will the camera be moving, but the talent will be

moving as well. We will be shooting on the Panasonic Varicam in unison with

a set of Zeiss Digi-Primes so our ASA rating will be around 320 and our

fastest lens stop is a T1.6.

It is likely that we will be shooting wide open or close to wide open most

of the time... so our DOF will be shallow and the focal plane will be thin,

(challenging situation). We will be using a Chrosziel Wireless Remote Follow

Focus or similar. You will have a native HD monitor for visual reference if

you choose.

Responsibilities include keeping talent in FOCUS, building / managing the

remote follow focus system and working with the 2nd A/C and camera P.A.to

keep everything pertinent to the camera department running smoothly.

If you can do all this and are interested in the job, then please feel free

to contact me! Thank you : )

If interested please email me at: doondoon@mac.com

Like Mr. Rawls said, those cameras are pretty opposite in every way. I think your best bet, since the HVX was used for some sort of POV, is to make the POVs look distinctly different than the rest of the footage. Trying to amke the two cut seamlessly will probably work about as well as mixing film and HD cams worked for Miami Vice...

Yeah, I'm NOT trying to "match" the two cameras in anyway other than aspect ratio and color. The POV is going to be it's own unique type footage that will serve the story well. The point of view is coming from a man buried up to his waste in a desert dry lake bed. So he is really close to death.... his point of view is a little "off".

Here is a link to some set pics that someone snapped off.

http://homepage.mac.com/michaeltotten/SCORP%20/

I'll post some actual footage in the next couple days.

cheers,

Michael

Hi-

I just wrapped a short film using the Viper as the "A" camera and the HVX as the POV camera. On the Viper, I shot uncompressed 4:4:4 at 440 megabits to an HDCAM-SR deck in the 2:37 aspect ratio. We shot 1080p 23.98.

On the HVX, we shot 1080p 24/ 16:9, so I guess we'll have to crop and zoom to match the Vipers aspect ratio and I know we'll loose some resolution as a result. Before our online edit and color correct we'll convert all HVX footage to HDCAM-SR so I think that'll help with big with matching the cameras/colors.

My question is has anyone had any experience cutting footage from these two cameras together? If so, I'd like to here about your experience. Please send me a private message.

Best,

Michael

Hey everyone-

I'm shooting a short narritive in the desert in a few weeks so I'm in the process of planning out each shot and trying to figure out the best lens/equipment to use. I've been doing some research, watching a lot of films including "Once upon a time in the west" and "Lawrence of Arabia".

COMPOSITIONALLY, the look that I'm going for is sort of a hybrid between both films. Unfortunately we wont be able to shoot 2:35 like they did... but I want to try and "fake" that wide look as best I can with a lot of negative space on either side of the frame. Does anybody have any experience or ideas about how to achieve this look?

EXPOSURE:

I think it's going to be very hard to expose both the actor and background "properly". It's OK if the background goes a little hot (after all it is the desert), but I'd much rather have both in. HD's latitude won't really allow that without lighting the face of the actor pretty heavily with an HMI or perhaps some reflector boards or perhaps mirrors. We will, however be attempting to shoot the majority of this scence during the "golden hour" or softer light periods of he day.... and try to avoid the bright fllat high noonish hours, but I have a feeling that we're going to end up shooting all day anyway so I want to plan for the worst. The changing light won't be a story/continuity problem, but it could present some exposure and lighting challenges. Any thoughts? I was thinking of softening the overhead light with bleached muslin 12X12 and then bouncing some light through something soft on the actors face as a key. Then hiting the actor with more bounced/soft light with a 3/4 back skip (also key side). And then filling in to taste.

I hope this set up works? I'm nervous... we don't really have a "lighting package"... more like a couple lights and a lot of bounce. Hopefully we can bring him up with the bounce enough... I'd like to avoid the HMI.

We're shooting on the Varicam in unison with the pro-35mm adapter and several fairly wide Cooke S4's.

I believe the focal lengths of the S4's are: 14mm, 25mm, and 35 mm. We are also getting one nice zoom with a longer focal length (I believe 100mm). So I feel that we've got things pretty well covered (although I have considered an even wider lens) for this next shot (and question).

I want to get a really wide shot but also achieve a relatively shallow depth of field. The subject is buried up to his waste in the desert sand. The subjects torsoe and face will be prominently placed on one side of the frame (Medium Shot) and on the other side of the frame I'd like to have a lot of "negative space" or just sort of desert heat blur that leads into the "nothingness".

Does that make sense? In the foreground I'd like to have about 8 to 10 inches of sand/ground (and it should be in focus... or very close)

My thought is (instead of the long lens shallow depth trick I will do the exact opposite). If I move the camera really close to the subjust on a 14mm lens then I should get the same effect, right? I guess the lens would have to be maybe a foot or two away from the subject to achieve this. I don't mind a little bit of fish eye distortion as I think that characteristic lends itself nicely to the story line (he's buried in the sand and dying).

My question is:

Will this work? Do I need a wider lens? or do I need to pull back a bit and zoom in?

Any comments or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Gearing up for a short film a couple weeks out. It's a western... so it'll be 95% daylight exteriors. Some of the establishing shots are going to be LANDSCAPE WIDE (I'm a little worried about those) as I understand the HVX doesn't render wide/landscape well. Hmmm :blink:

We already have access to an HVX-200, so that's most likely the camera that we'll use so most likely we'll just have to make due with what we've got. We do however want to use 35mm prime lens and we're considering both the P+S as well as the movietube. What are the pros and cons of each?

I want the best image possible. does anybody have experience with both?

About that 800x480 resolution...

 

Is that the true resolution? LCD manufacturers often neglect to mention that it takes three dots (RGB) to represent a pixel of video, so you usually have to divide the stated resolution by three. The highest true resolution I've seen before in a 7 inch monitor is 240, so Marshall's specs are interesting.

 

The thing I really want to know is, can you pull focus (in HD) with this thing? It seems too good to be true.

I've been trying to get to the bottom of this too.. I've heard mostly great things about the Marshall, but it does seem to good to be true. I just don't understand how you can get good critical focus in HD on a monitor that isn't natively HD? I haven't as of yet heard an explanation that's really answered the question head on. The specs sort of indicate that the Marshall is probably better fit for the DVX-100 or whatever SD DV camera.

But then again I haven't worked with or seen the monitor in person.

What am I missing here? Am I going to have to spend 4K on a good HD LCD monitor? Or drag a big ole CRT to set??

I would guess that he was using the #1/2, maybe also the #1 Classic Soft. I tested the #1/2 and got similar effects around bright points of light, but the #1/4 was too subtle to see much of that.

Hey David- I'm wondering if I can send you an email? I've got a question I'd like to ask you.

Thank you!

If you choose, you can send me your email @: michaeltotten@mac.com

Cheers-

Michael

With the HDW900 you will either need a HD monitor that accepts HD input or you rent a Miranda converter that seems to be built for the HDW. Snugs in very nicely and downconverts the HD signal so you can use a "normal" monitor. I suggest renting a HD monitor since you are loosing detail while down converting. Plus a HD monitor will have a higher resolution. Your AC will be more happy most likely. And the director, and the makeup artist, and the costume designer they all will love you :-)

 

Markus

Hi-

I know you made this post like a year ago... I just happend upon it through Google. I'm looking at buying a Sony HDW900 24" monitor and am wondering if it'll handle Hi-Def viewing from a Varicam and/or the soon to be released Panasonic HVX-200?

You mentioned something about a downconvertor? Why would that be necessary? The resolution of the Sony is more than Hi-def. I must be missing part of the equation.

Thanks,

Michael

Tim, not sure where you are getting your tapes, or perhaps you make the common mistake of thinkng the AJ-P60M or L is a one hour load for DVCPRO HD, it is not. Right now, the AJ-P126L which on a 1200 will give you 1 hour of HD recording you can expect to pay between $25.00 to $30.00 dollars. The $13.00 is a one hour of DVCPRO, or 1/2 hour of DVCPRO50 or a 1/2 hour in the extended record DVCPRO HD machines.

 

If this project was mine to store I would consider an archival format that they use in the IT industry, like DLT, LTO, where the cost per gig to store is vastly less that DVCPRO tape or even hard drives. If we look at DVCPRO HD as about 1 GB a minute that DVCPRO HD tape is costing roughly $1 a gig. An DLT can store 200 minutes at $50, or .25 a gig. I'd take the .25. The deal is with recording to memory that you do have to come up with a strategy for archive that works, and you need to have a workflow thought out. Once you do that it is very straight-forward and you can have all of the advantages of working in the tape-free domain.

 

Hope that helps,

 

Jan

Hi-

I'm wondering if there would be any loss in quality in the DLT workflow? Also, how long would the average DLT tape last?

Thanks,

Michael