Michael Collier

I just got done working on a red project, and though I was in the G&E dept. I did take time to observe the ACs work flow. From what I can tell, the job was no different than AC for film. Instead of loading mags and threading film, the AC would either attach the HDD or the CF according to the DPs request, they would format the drive and set the roll number on the camera. (on the red you can set a roll number and camera letter, so the file name and metadata reflects the roll/cam for editors ease) Then once either a drive was full, or they decided to download the footage to a laptop for backups, they would change the roll number. As far as focus, the AC still took measurements and marks, though probably not as many as if it were a film pull. The DP on this show was fond of keeping the appeture around a 2.8, so he didn't have a whole lot of wiggle room. Most times he measured set t-marks and pulled from those like normal. In certain situations he would pull from the monitor, but with director, producer, scripty and everyone esle staring at the monitor, it looked like that was the less preferable option. Also I think, as a good first AC should, he wanted to be close to the operator during takes, especially during handheld shots so he could take the cam between takes. During steadycam shots obviously the monitor is now SD after a downconvert, and after the wireless link, it would be impossible to pull from. As far as the onboard monitor pulls, It seemed as though the AC was pulling by marks and glancing at the OB occasionally to check. To my eyes that monitor was too small to judge soft focus, so you'd have to be way off to notice on the monitor.

If anything is true in filmmaking's strange language, its that terms are borrowed, stolen, or transposed from almost any source to where they don't belong (if you don't believe me, go contiplate the butt plug you may need to rent on your next gig) Gaffer is a terms that came from merchant marrines. Longshore men would generaly work in the small studios in the early days when on leave. Now if we are going to get picky about celuloid v silicone, then damnit we must find new names for that position. If a gaffer doesn't have a gaff pole in his hands at all times, is he truely a gaffer? English is about understood meaning, not strict literalism. need another example? Best boy used to be an apprentice, usually farther in their aprenticeship than others, but I think nobody would ask a best boy on set how their apprenticeship is going. I would say that the lexicon of filmmakers, more than other areas of language, is beholden to tradition, and so is likely to have archaic terms that don't make too much sense if you try and think about them litterally. film makers will be filmmakers. I don't think anything will/should change. just don't call a tape 'the neg'.

My first approach would be to carefully block. When all the lights are spaced equally, then you can set ratios by moving them closer or farther away from a light, as one gets hotter to become a key, the other dims to become a fill. From there you can flag to increase ratio, you can bring in some lens-level fill (if you bring your actors to close to the light, it can become toppy). Use what you have and augment/cut/shape from there. careful blocking will minimize what work you have to do to the light thats there.

used a bunch of DMMs in my time, some fluke, some not, I would recomend fluke. Its worth the little bit of extra cash. Just make sure whatever you get, make sure it powers down after a set time of inactivity. I can't tell you how many batteries I have gone through on meters accidently left on. Get a backup set of batteries and keep them in your gig bag. Don't worry about meters with scopes or memory or any of that non-sense, your not RF troubleshooting a highspeed circut, but do get a digital one. I never really liked the analog ones. To many scales crammed onto one gauge. Seems like there are all kinds of range errors that when taking a rushed reading could lead to big headaches.

I was chatting with a director friend of mine the other day while watching the rough cut of our last project together. In the hours of raw footage there is a take where a hand bag is thrown at an actor, but the bag misses the on screen- intended target- and flies into the groin of a very unluckey PA. Laughter erupts and production halts for a good minute while everyone composes themselves. I commented to the director that you can see in the very instant the actors on camera start laughing, and I hear 'he got hit in the....' I switch from shooting a movie to very clearly shooting behind the scenes footage. I turned to capture the PA doubled over, get in close to get his facial reactions and turn to capture moments from the director and actor laughing and throwing jokes out. It was a very candid moment that will be awsome in the behind the scenes featurette. It didn't waste time, since the actors were laughing uncontrollably, just tape. My question is how common is this, and are operators encouraged to keep shooting and to roam beyond what the setup had planned for them when an event like this happens? I know I haven't seen it on any DVDs yet, but theres something cool about the actual camera turning to capture those moments, instead of cutting to a lower-quality EPK camera. obviously if something like this happens on a film shoot, the cams cut. But if its digital then the cost is much lower to just keep rolling. Whats protocol for this sort of thing? I worked out with that director rights to be able to continue doing that where I see fit in future projects, but when working with new productions and directors, will that sort of thing be frowned upon? (I come from a doc/efp background, so when something like this happens my instinct kicks in. I would have to train myself to roll down the camera if someone were to take offense) and while this thread is started, any funny takes gone wrong stories?

Also keep in mind that when you use white balance to get your look, you risk (or more likely have to work around) other elements. As an example I shot a scene meant to be very green. Since I wanted practicle christmas tree lights to read green, I balanced the camera through neg-green. Any light I wanted to be white had to have neg green applied to make the look work. The problem comes in when you understand that one (or more) chanels are pushed closer to an upper (or lower) limit. In that scene we had a DJ light throwing multi-colored rays of light everywhere. The red rays would super-saturate, to the point where they looked fake. Because the green channel had been boosted so much, the saturated reds would over-saturate, since on chip the red channel was almost pushed to the chroma limit. If I had used a neg-green glass filter, that might not have been an issue. we had to be very careful to maintain a propper 'white' exposure and fill with at least a base level of 'green' fill on any element in frame that was to be a bright red, to keep it from taking on the same look (difficult when your working with a fight scene with lots of stage blood.) for elements you know you have to alter in the digital realm, its best to do a fair amount of that in the white balance (IE, production couldn't afford a neg green glass for that one scene, and I couldn't gel 200 strands of christmas tree lights). Balance happens before it goes to compression, so the signal is still in a 10, 12, or 14 bit uncompressed stream, so radical color shifts at that point amplify the noise less, and since there are no compression or sub-sampling artifacts baked in yet, those are not exagerated in the same way they would be in post, especially if your working in the 8bit 4.2.0 DV color space, or other highly compressed scemes. but bottom line, if you can get the real glass, and can commit to a direction for a look, its much better. White balance tricks are the next best thing, but far from perfect. Post digital manipulation is best saved for 'final tweeks' and situations where no other practical method is avalible on set.

I think you already downressed the picture when you imported HD material into an SD project and then reduced the scale by 45%. When you export to DV you have created a downressed file. You do have the hardware to capture HD. HDV goes over firewire just like DV did. It doesn't take any special hardware, just a computer fast enough to handle it. sounds like you already captured the footage in HD If you would like to finish in HD, like was said earlier, you must first change the project settings to a 1080i project, and edit there. You will find you don't need to resize any shot, and it will show up in full HD quality. Once your done you can print back to tape (again in HDV over firewire, maintaining the resolution) and play directly from camera to a plasma screen or something similar. If you decide SD is the way to go, but are unhappy with the compression artifacts that DV gives you once you downres, then change your render setting so you export to an uncompressed SD file, then send that for MPEG compression for DVD. If you compressed to DV, then the MPEG compression will pick up the artifacts and excentuate them.

Hes like the Mick Jagger of cinematography, I think he gets a pass. Most emuslsion jockeys are kind of buttoned down, not terribly impulsive and somewhat reserved, so I think its awsome to have a guy who lets it all fly....and then backs it up with talent. I do find it ironic that he is shooting a film now called 'the limits of control'. I hope he keeps rocking. as long as he can maintain a balance between his excess and his craft, he will always be a unique and interesting individual, even if hes not exactly a role model.

Is it a 4pin plug? If so you have two hots and a nutral (and a ground) you would wire one bates to one hot and the nutral, and another bates to the other hot and the nutral. Make sure and run ground to both bates. Make sure hot stays hot, nutral stays nutral and check with a volt meter before you get too crazy and strike every light on circuit. If its a 3 pin you might be SOL. Keep in mind this effectivley splits the load handling ability between the two cables, so if your running a 30A breaker, each bates can hold only 15A, so you can't load 20A on one and 10A on another. (now where are you getting bates connectors, and why couldn't we find them for Way up North?) Your using two bates, are you planning on using two luchboxes as well?

Ballpark is about 700-1000 bucks for 10=15 days production (can usually be split into weekends only, or certain days only, and can be switched if you call the place in advance, shuold a location drop out or any other unforseen problems). At that level its not really a matter of getting insurance that fits exactly what you want to do, but more to fit the companies minimum bill order, and most places are around 700 bucks minimum. Good news is for that price you can probably get the camera, a rider for all G&E and maybe even an umbrella policy to cover crew and/or location liability. Talk to your broker about coverage to make sure you know what your getting. I went through film emporium on the last few films (I think I did anyway, the last few I just recomended them to the producer) and they were helpful. It seems (as is the case with all insurance) that the underwritters of the policy are not the ones who issue the policy, and those that underwrite are few and base their prices off standard risk formulas with standard data sets of past events. bottom line, most every place you go to will have a premium within 2-5% of the other, the only thing changing is the broker fee. Look for a low broker fee on your policy and your probably getting the best rate. Film emporium I think charged somewhere around $55 broker fee on a $900 premium, to give you some idea (this was the one and only film that I ever even saw the invoice. Usually getting insurance isn't really my department, so I don't even ask to see invoices.) Hope that helps.

Sounds like your thinking on Ron Dexters website. www.rondexter.com

Just did a radio interview with the director on the film. If you'd like to listen to the podcast, its avalible here: http://kska.org/2008/05/28/alaska-radio-re...r-way-up-north/

Do you suspect this problem exists only in areas that are on the 50hz standard? I understand you couldn't test a 60hz with 1/48th exposure, but from what you've seen is it likely that RED users in America would see the same problem?

Good point. I was doing a radio interview with a director about a movie I had just shot, and the radio host asked me the same question. Oh it has to save you so much time on lighting since you can see it on the monitor. I tried to quickly explain why that wasn't really the case (or more, why its not really nessisary to look through the monitor when lighting, only for final tweeks, if that. eyes and a brain are the best lighting check.) One more cyc question david. It looks like at a certain point the clouds shift their natural line, from moving left to moving right. That would seem to suggest a vanishing point? or is it just a style variation to add composition options? If it were the latter, I would be tempted to use that portion of the cyc for almost every shot, to the point of creating a stale composition motif. So how do you balance your desire to use that feature to modivate composition, with the need to keep images from becoming too predictable/stale? or is it just a vanishing point for one particular angle if your wide on set?

100 bucks a foot? doh. In that case, I will stick to a 4K Hmi and ND(For the price it might even be cost effective. I am sure I can convince my gaffer to drop or remove a scrim if the light outside changes.) Looked cool. but 5600/roll? no thanks. Rick Sharf- Bergstrom found it, emailed it to me and I posted it like its my idea. Then he comes on this board to nay-say the find he got. I will never understand that guy, but hes a genius at what he does, so I will let it slide. and only one stop? Surely that can't be right. Polarizers that are off axis are nearly 100% light loss, if they are true polas. What good could 0-1 stop variation be on set, given the cost. I am going to keep it in mind for special effects, and big budgets. *EDIT- after looking closer, its one stop loss through the camera filter. I am sure the gel goes opaque when the filter is fully off-axis.

http://www.rosco.com/uk/video/roscoview.asp Looks very very interesting. I can see it being useful in situations where outside there are large fast moving clouds and you anticipate a varying outside exposure, while your trying to maintain interior-through-the-glass exposure. Especially if its a long indoors shoot where you'd ND the windows anyway. Now if they release this in a combination with CTO, I am way down. Also I can see it being usefull for impresionistic effects/special effects. Has anyone used this gel yet?

I was a telemarketer throughout college. If you felt bad during the interview, don't be. You missed a bullet. You would feel much worse once you became a telemarketer. Trust me, its why almost everyone in my call center was on speed or coke or meth. They needed something to pepp them up to seem excited about the crap we were pushing on people. I told one call it was an interesting job and was thinking about making a movie about it (after we talked movies and how I was studying it) she said to me in the most sincere way...'sounds like a really boring movie.' yep. she was dead on (she did buy a vacation to branson missouri from me though). Boiler room was the only film to put excitement into a job like that (and trust me EVERY telemarketing training session begins and ends with clips of boiler room, no mater what call center you work. everyone thinks they are alec baldwin.) consider yourself lucky and persue your passion. telemarketing is a one way ticket to burnt out ville (and perhaps a wicked substance abuse problem...i was lucky to dodge both.)

I'll pick one up if they are still avalible. shipping shouldn't be a problem. IM me

your making it too complicated. In telecine I transfer everything at 30fps. Do that and you will be fine. One frame on film will be one frame on the video, and you can tell the NLE to interpret the footage at a proper rate. In post slow the footage down to real time. If you shoot 6fps and your timeline is 24p then slow it down by a factor of 4 (25%). Make sure you keep frame blending off and you'll have the same effect as step printing. As an added bonus the telecine will be cheaper. You won't have to supervise and reset for a step transfer (if that's even possible) and since its 30fps, even normal 24p will fly through fasterthan real time, reducing machine time costs (and media cost if you have a lot of footage)

Is this a video shoot of a theatrical performance? In theater its typical to have all crew wear dress blacks, meaning a collared shirt, slacks belt all in black, so your not seen if your in the back of house. if its just a video shoot, then thats strange. I have never really heard of a dress code to crew, other than wear clothes appropriate for the conditions (or dress clothes if its an industrial with a big wig.)

Light selection is the very end of a reverse engeneering experiment. On your tech scout, you'll likely know what mood your going for (or you can chat with your director about that during the scout, though its best to scout with your keys, having previously discussed look and feel with the director; everyone has a lot to do.) Once you know in general how your going to light it you need to break it down to peices. You need a key light and fill. Or if its a night shot maybe you just want soft fill and a hard backlight. Either way you break down into chunks where you need light, and what quality that light must be. Figure out how big that space is. Figure out how far away your lights need to be to cover the action in frame without it looking like the light is just off camera. Only once you can visualize where you want your lights and what exposure you want them to be at can you decide what lamps to use. If you have a good gaffer that you have worked with for a while, final desision might rest with him as to which instrument to use, though you should always be prepared to know what your preferance is. As a student you might not have a gaffer/skilled gaffer to work with, so maybe at that point your guess is as good as his. And thats just it. Its an educated guess. Once you know everything you need, your still guessing. Its based off experience though. Once you shoot a lot you'll get a really good idea what a 650 fresnel can do compared to a 1K open face, or a maxi-brute through 1/2 CTB etc. Build on that until you know what every light is capable of (never ending task, you'll always find a new ability of a light you thought you knew) You can read photometrics the manufacturers provide to get an idea of power throw, but in the end its really up to your experience with lights. Also sometimes selection is a combination of how much raw wattage you need combined with the logistical limitations of the location, or the structural limitations of the grip its attached too. If you need a 5K fresnel, but only have nail on plates and questionable roof, you might call for 5 totas up there, or a bag light, since a full heavy fresnel might not be safe in the place it needs to be rigged. Here your key grip is the one to rely on if you have a concern of rigging. Most will tell you regardless of what you want to throw up there 'don't worry, we'll think of a way to do it safe.' (god bless a good key grip!) So get out and shoot, build experience with the tools and soon you won't have to think too hard when it comes to light selection. Its all a matter of degrees, if you think of it in stops. You start with 300 watt backlight, and double the power (adding roughly a stop) and chart that out and you get 300-650-1K-2K-5K-10K-20K. Thats only 7 spaces from tiny units to the really big units. With experience you can narrow your needs to one of two lights, then typically you choose the higher rated one, since if your wrong you can simply add a single or double scrim to nock it down by either a half or full stop. Any DP/Gaffer worth their salt trys their best to avoid hanging a light only to find it needs to be a bigger or smaller unit, though it does happen occasionally. Now that you get that, have fun learning how the differnce in unit type affects the selection (why would you bring a fresnel in as apposed to an open face. Or a par compared to a frezzy. Why call for a 2k zip light (softlight) compared to a kino.) ....hey you got through this novel of a post. good job, I didn't even read it all.

on smaller shows with the typical working lunch its more like, 'be sure to get in a PAs ear (or someone within your crew) to grab food for you and the rest of your crew. Last show I noticed in the begining none of my crew was fed, because we would schedule it to arrive when we were done with one setup and moving into a major relight. By the end it was more like 3 or 4 people would take the inititive and bring us plates, which really helps. also keep your wits about you. Its easy to get lost in all the noise, so you have to sometimes work to stay focused and effecient.

Its possible the 24p/23.98 discrepancy is to blame for the slow running, seems to fit the straight face test, but I wonder how you came to the conclusion it is on average one frame off every 25-30 seconds. I assume you shot some footage, telecined it out to video and compared it to a similarly recorded video from your XL-2. If that is the case, you have already compensated for the 23.98fps. Your telecine would have been slowed ever so slightly so as to fit within the NTSC (dumbest system alive....doesn't fit the acronym, sorry hal, but it does fit the spirit. I think every engeneer was out to lunch in 1953....or they didn't have wicked cool FPGA chips on the cheap) but I digress. Unless your assumption of one frame every 25-30 seconds is based on observation of a 24fps sync projector compared to a video presentation of 24p with a pulldown, it should be assumed the telecine would add the pulldown/slowdown that NTSC would naturaly present. So it seems (to me from limited information) the motor is running slow. I would assume if it is marked synced and is as old as you say, it would most likely tie its sync to the frequency of the line voltage. After all in the 30s and 40s, the only thing capable of keeping time in AC power was the mains, and even then it was still not as tightly regulated as a crystal sync. The only saving grace was likely your audio recorder was synced by the very same power source, so small discrepancies would be matched between film and audio. I can only assume, not knowing much about older sync motors, is that somewhere your drivetrain has more drag than the tolerances allow. So if an AC motor turns a certain amount per phase, this motor occasionally slows due to drag, and at a certain point in a 25-30 second cycle, it lacks the momentum to turn, even though the phase would theoretically be able to move the motor the requisit amount. This is all just a guess though. I have no practicle knowledge of motors that old. take it with a grain of salt. Others can chime in. Hal is an engineer and dp. he can tell me if I am way off base or on to something.

Perhaps you mentioned in the post and I missed it, but were the window lights natural sunlight allowed to stream through, or did you tent those and punch HMIs through? Looks really good. Very atmospheric (It looks as though there was some smoke throughout this location?)

Segway/steadycam combo? I have never heard of a rig like that? Has anyone got experience with it? It seems like steadycam is all about balancing your weight and a seqway is all about throwing your balance of to direct it where to go. it seems you wouldn't even have a free hand to turn the segway handle? Do you have any video of this rig? Especialy video of the actual incident? could make for some good you tube fodder