Michael Collier

Yeah me too. I was getting quotes on 35mm short ends for a corperate shoot and kept saying 7218. I think the guy corrected me like 3 times saying "you mean 5218". Its force of habbit. I think when I get to a level where all my work is on 35, I will petition Kodak to change its number system to 72xx=35mm 52xx=16mm, just to make it easy on me....what do you think? I think they'll go for it.

Haha, its Buick, sometimes you just gotta ignore him. 5254 eh? Matt, have u ever exposed frame one of 35mm? I doubt you've even shot any 16mm. And this is not to point out the fact that 5254 was discontinued long before you were born. Hell, it was discontinued before I was born. But you'd underexpose it to match? Keep the tips rolling Buick. always good for a laugh.

Making of video for sprints commercial (similar technique) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfefTRDY4sc Also I think AC mag has an article a few months back that had a write up on that music video, though I don't have my collection handy to tell you what month. I remember seeing the commercial the first time and getting really excited, and hoping (without believing) that it was shot practicle. I think as I recall they used a D20 DSLR or something like that on a long exposure-setting.

Also do a search for Britek lights. Lower cost than Photoflex and decent quality (just treat them with kid gloves, they are built of high impact heat resistant platic, as apposed to metal.) I imagine your on a tight budget and are buying all the lights you'll get to use for the next 2-3 years, so these lights should last and fill out a decent package. Dont get the stands from them....worthless.

Well Janard did tell us who hes got on staff...I didn't hear any opticle engeneers names dropped. Could be cause an OE isn't as sexy as an EE from AJA but who knows. I would not be surprised if they are repackaging pre-produced lenses in PL, with slight modification to adjust the flange depth requirement (or maybe not...theres no opticle VF) Sigma isn't terrible, I have a bunch of them for my SLR set. Definatley the best of the bargain basement lenses. Also I think sigma has the largest opticle glass factory in the world, so economies of scale is there. I think it may be cultural, anyone who has seen a japanees tourist knows what I am talking about. They don't carry Point and shoot cameras, they love their SLRS. and now DSLRs. Not trying to be offensive or stereotypical its just an observation (and actually I respect them for it...my entire extended family has nothing but PAS all day. They must love their pictures.) Perhaps that led sigma to be such a large lens company with low prices. They are decent but they have flaws. They don't have any good coatings on those lenses. Flare is a constant concern when I slap my sig 28-70 or 70-300 macro. backlit situations take some thinking. Glass quality and construction is a bit lacking, but not horribly, I just don't get that 'built like a diamond' feeling a more costly lens has. I think for cinema use I will reserve judgement on RED lenses, since its speculation at best they are repackaged sigmas, but just wanted to throw my opinon on sigma as a lens company. As I said I do proudly own some sig still lenses.

Yup, I have shot a procedure with a woman getting botox and saline injections. Not a pretty sight, but your right, the B/w view does help. I found it was best to sort of detach yourself from what your shooting. I looked at it in terms of shapes and shading and contrast, and tried to ignore as best I could what was going on. At least it was all injections, no incisions were made, which made it easier. Still weird to see a lip start to balloon outward and then saline drip out when the needle is removed. I was lucky exposure wise because the DR didn't have a very bright light, more akin to a dentists light (in 5600k no less) and the window was open. All I did was turn on some X-ray examining light boxes on the opposite wall to act as fill and sometimes a kicker light, and it worked beautifully. Autopsy I haven't yet shot....nor would I like to. Our medical examiner is sorta odd, and I think he enjoys grossing people out. I have a friend who shot an autopsy with him, and it involved putting him in the freezer with about 10 bodies as he closed the door on him. good you kept your grits in!

To add to johns post, which was spot on, below an f2.0 can cause a headache for the 1st ac as they pull focus. Less DOF means any little bit they might be off will be exagerated, so it makes the shoot a little tougher and perhaps longer, with little gain in terms of image astetics. anamorphics are sometimes shot above a 2.8/4 split exclusivley (or at least when practicle) due to their lower DOF at similar feild of views. however note that I have not yet gotten to shoot an anamorphic yet.....yet.

Yup. As was said before let the DP choose lighting instruments. Its best if its a budgetary question to hammer it out in pre-production. If your planning on having both HMIs and Kinos on hand, then no worries. Let the DP sort out what light works best for the look and space avalible (and sometimes power). Most DP lighting is a bit of reverse engeneering, at least thats my approach to it. I look at the scene, take stock of what light is coming from where naturally and work around that (or try killing some of the natural and augmenting my own sources) Basicly we look at the path actors will be moving through and plan out how we want the light falling, quality as was mentioned before. Is the light soft? Does it need to be sourcy with lots of fall off or more ambient in nature? Is a light going up considered key or fill (or otherwise) will determine how that unit is treated (as well as the wattage, type and filtering/diffusion issues) There is so much involved that really as a director all you should worry about is feeling. You may not micro manage when your actors give a certain facial experession or give them line readings, but you will discuss the feeling and aim of the scene and let them perform. Same goes for DP. But like I said, if its budgetary talk before hand about what will work best for the scene. I have been on shows that can only afford HMIs or Kinos, never both, so I have worked with the director to determine what works best for me accross the whole day or whole shoot. But that decision is built on so many competeing needs that its a tough call and one left best to the DP. If you want to work more closely with the DP (and I imagine you do by your words) learn the language of film look. Look at films and mark in your head if you feel the scene is lo-con/hi-con, lo-key/hi-key, sourcey/ambient, desaturated, etc.

It seems the easiest way, if there is a standard deviation in the focus markings, not remark the barrel, just add a new target line. Fill in the first line with black epoxy or something robust, then engrave and paint a new line where it needs to be. This is assuming the housing though wrong for the optics inside, still has the same scale as the optics, which may or may not be true. Test out your lens and see if the deviation of focus is standard, if so you saved yourself a lot of time and money.

the crane zoom combo is a great suggestion, if practicle. Also forground in a zoom always adds interest, because the composition sceme will change as foreground elements encroatch the frame. Also keep in mind the lamest zoom keeps the center of zoom in the center of the lens. If you can, make your center of zoom something off-center. This of course means a very steady, metered pan/tilt move to keep that object in that portion of frame (or to have it slowly drift into a new composition) That gets very effective since your tilt/pan doesn't look like a tilt/pan, unless you mess it up a bit, and your zoom has a little dynamic quality. Try that out and see if it works for you.

Not really. It was out of line, off topic and I don't think anyone would get anything from reading it. I wish I hadn't read it. The poster I am sure will either go away, chill out or expose himself as an arse as you put it again. I am glad the post is gone, it was embarressing to our community (lest we all be labeled angry, spiteful, ignorant and boarderline rascists)

On the meteor lens, I would recomend not using ND to get more contrast. If you watch the iris, it starts round, then goes into a star of david pattern around an f2.0-2.8, then back to a circle around f 4/5.6 split. It seems to be soft and lower contrast (as a result of that softness) when the iris is still in star of david mode. Its kinda lame with that lens, since basicly if you want to avoid that your shooting everything at an f4-5.6, which means more DOF. If you get a chance pick up a cheap set of M42 mount 35mm lenses. I am still trying to find a C-mount adaptor so I can use quality lenses that go a bit wider than the 22mms I can find in M42. But for longer lenses, get a used set of prime still lenses. As much as you love your K3 now, you'll really dig it with a better lens on it.....and tripod, I will concur on that. handheld good is for when a handheld shot says something other than "man sticks are too heavy to carry around". or get a handheld shot of your tripod, I suppose then we wouldn't have anything to say. edit* sorry saw earlier you said you need to find a good tripod....they can get pricey, but a 501 head with a decent set of sticks might run you 400-500 bucks and will do the job for anything up to the HDV weight range (rated at 13 pounds, really more suited to 7 or under). Look for one with a 75mm ball level mount...it will save you a ton of time rather than trying to adjust every leg to level your head, even if it costs you a bit more. It will mean you won't get the crank up center column, but those are worthless anyway.

I think the problem a lot of us have..... (and before you blast me, re-read my words, and search my previeous posts on RED, I'm not a hater, just getting numb to the bickering) .....anyway the problem a lot of us have with the red DISCUSSION (not the camera) is that it has brought this forum down to the level of other forums less proffesional forums. Anonymous forums where people blast aways and act like teenagers. This should be a forum for proffesionals. There was a time, and there are still posters and boards here that still are, professional. People who understand their name is tied to what they type here and speak as such. It used to be solely geared towards getting our jobs done and learning new things, all the while everyone is being as courtious as they would be in person (even phil, I am sure is somewhat abrassive in person, but he knows a lot and hes only abbrasive to make points, and does so well with reserve, unless you jab him with a fork...which I have seen here before) Red, I think, has brought in a level of discourse on the forums down to the anonymous internet drivel, attacks and counterattacks, arguments that go to far or dont make sense or really serve no purpous to help elevate our art. Maybe red has created a feeding frenzy that turned good people into combative people, but I think red has just brought those people over to this forum, when before they were not (not all our new members, just a few select ones I won't be naming). I never saw posts as offensive to every long-time member of the forums as I saw yesterday. I am embarressed that such excelent devoted members could be treated so abhorently for what was a well thought out reasonable argument. Those posts needed to be closed and deleted, I was simply aghast to find writting like that. I do not want to loose forum members who in the past two years I have been a member have helped me countless times expand my understanding of the craft, and helped modivate me to elivate my work. I certainly don't want those members replaced with those who would spend their time arguing about a bunch of copper wires. Its people that inspire me to do better work, not better cameras. In sumation, I just want to say I hope we can all cool off, relax, have a smoke if you need, just please can we get back to constructive advice tips and questions on the subject of cinematography? I mean, we all should be courtious towards eachother, after all, we are brothers in lenses. Let the painters bicker about which easle works best (painters are of course very hot blooded, its their nature, but it shouldn't be a photographers nature) please?

I always let the sun burn. up to 3 stops over sometimes. figure out the contrast range and make a decision from there about bounce and over/under and ratios. Sometimes it can be a 4 or 5 stop difference or more, if theres dark buildings/foliage behind the camera. Throw up some bounce around the camera. a little goes a long way. check to see how underexposed the face will be. A stop or two is fine, depending on the look your going for. use bounce for fill/modeling light. also trust your neg. First time I was in that situation on film it was a cloudless morning, 5 stop range and I had no choice but to trust my stock. I did use lots of bounce to bring the ratio inline, but I was very very nervous that I overexposed 3 stops on the backlight. Footage came back and it looked perfect. trust your negative, they're made to be trusted.

Perhaps we can talk kodak into making an anual donation of out of date/dented film stock? I would donate to the fund if it gets set up

John helped me get my first film project through without mistake. He would always answer questions, from the bone-headed queries to complex demanding questions with simplicity and ease. Its a great man who can take complex issues and explain everything in a way that is simple and understandable. He will be missed and I will always remember how his work helped a small indie filmmaker all the way up in Alaska. I hope his family knows how important and gracious he was to our community, in ways he'd never know.

Check out DVrack. I think they have it now for macs. It gives you a screen (with actually very little lag) and gives you the option to see waveform/vectrascope, audio spectrum analizer, and a whole host of other tools. If your going to tote your laptop around to shoot, I'd recomend that software over FCP. It can even do backup recording automatically. I have used it in certain circumstances, but carrying laptops around with all the other stuff I need, sometimes seems excessive.

Take that Einstien! I always knew that jerk was a hippie liar.

of course hes legit, i mean they don't give a 0 rating to just anyone.

On your website it claims producers get a fee upfront, and possibly royalties, but in your contract you only have a clause for 10% of revenue generated by content produced. quote from the website: and from the contract: how do you explain both statements, since they seem to conflict. This does not seem like a legit offer, and moreover it seems like your activley trying to decieve people. Why else would you have the clause about compensation in the top of the contract, but the definition of said fee (quoted in this post) at the bottom where few are likely to see it. Come on whats the real deal?

I gotta reiterate Nash....read lots of books! theres too much info to ask others about, and lots you'd never even think to ask. I post this though, to recomend the first book on that list. Kris Malkiewicz' Cinematography. I got that book when I was 12 or 13 (my first book on cinematography as well) and it is a great way to wrap your head around the basics, and sets you up with a starting point. ps. i think you confused light meter with appeture, or iris. read read read read.....once you know a lot about cinematography, you'll have even more questions for us, but ones that are a little more complex and not a result of confusion or lack of understanding. Books are great for getting a foundation. I have a shelf full of cinematography books. I would recomend the same for you. Also subscribe to American Cinematographer. Reading the words of working DPs helps emensly, and also spurs interest and research into portions of the art that you might have never considered.

I like to use it to them (on the few instances I have been able to get one for a narative shoot) to check skin tone along with white/blacks clip. You can plan your skin tone at any level, depending on the actor at hand, but if shot to shot within a scene you place their key light at the same IRE, your shots will be very consistent. Esp. since most caucasian actors fall in the 65-75 IRE level its important to use, since monitors aren't always calibrated properly, and that transition from mid-tone to highlight is notoriously difficult for cameras to handle. Everything else I do by eye, and then check highlights/shadows with the waveform, and knock those down the highlights and bring up the shadows as needed. A good tip to check the skintone level if your on a zoom lens, just zoom into the forehead of the actor (or similar target in your key light) that way the whole of the WFM is easy to read and interpret. Watch out though, since all zoom lenses, and particularly the cheaper lenses will start to loose light as you get to the tighter end of the lens, which will throw off your reading when you zoom out, by as much as a half-stop or more. If your farther than mid-focal length, just use a light meter (or shoulder the camera and move closer to get a reading. an assistent to hit the freeze button is very useful here.) Adjust your target IRE level just as you would adjust your target f-stop reading from your spot meter in film, depending on how light or dark you want to render your subject given the scene's setting and actors natural complexion.

To gell a china lantern, I have rolled CTB into a cylinder and taped it with roscor (I believe) heat sheild tape (which is clear and heat resistent) and fit that cylinder over the cage that holds the light. It usually works well. Only the top and bottom will leak unfiltered light, which can be flagged with blackwrap without loosing much light.

They will also pay attention if you save them from messing up. That is always a good feeling. I don't know about big productions, but the small ones I have worked on and even the TV and freelancing I have done, camera dept is always crosschecking eachother. Asking basic questions about filters, lens, appeture, etc. that everyone should have a handle on anyway. If everyones constantly asking quick double check questions, a few seconds is taken and it can save a HUGE mistake from happening. I would recomend buying 'Camera Assistent: A complete proffesional handbook' by doug hart. It goes into detail all the various resposibilities and expectations of all the ACs and camera trainees.

Rodger Dekins, hands down. I don't think my liver could take a Doyle internship (though I would love to try). With Doyle you'd probably pick up some asian cinema style from the directors he works with.