Michael Collier

David in your posted test shots how did you rate your film? what is the combined under/over of the key light on those examples? Is it one full stop under from labeled speed, or is it one stop under your rated speed? My film is 1/3 stop under labeled speed. Overall I have been overexposing by 2/3 stop, so when I would have rated my 500t at 320 normally, but in that case I had to rate it 640 with either push or print up in mind. I think I am leaning the print up option because its only 1/3 stop and I can tweek the blacks in the digital finish, and the whole scene was rather low contrast (no big highlights, the parking lot was filled with newish snow that will register well. It is a night shot, so if things register a bit dark its not all that bad. Portions of the actress was highlighted with headlights off screen that did bring the exposure nearly up to key. The darker cars in the background should give good separation from the caucasian actress. I am just worried about grain.

So I shot finished shooting a night ext scene in a parkinglot where we were allowed no extra lights. The light wasn't quite enough but it was close. My question is, where does the line fall for printing up and pushing? This is r16mm, so grain is a huge concern. I have heard an equal number of people who shoot 500t pushed a stop and rated as 640 (for a 2/3 overexposure before the push) and I have heard of people shooting 500t as 640 and printing up. Which has less grain associated with it? We are finishing digital, and this particular scene will be somewhat desaturated. If I push I also get more saturation, which I can time out in post, or if I print up I would have less saturation and possible closer to what I want. But if I push would the grains be bigger than if I just print up? Details about the shot: Meter reading in key light with meter set to 640, 24fps: f2 1/3 Film stock: 7218 500t post timing needed: half correct the blue out of the (very high CRI) metal hallide lights. I'm not terribly afraid of grain, I do like it and of course this is r16 that will be cropped to 1.85, so grain will be there, but most of the film is shot on 200t and I don't want this scene and the other night shot to be too different grain wise. which is better: to push stock that has been overexposed by 2/3s (after the push) or to print up a stock that has been underexposed by 1/3 stop.

If your lucky enough to have casted twins for the child actors, you could have one act as left hand one as right with camera in the middle. It might take careful placing to ensure it looks proper, but it would work. You can do the same by casting a hand double for the actor. Another thing I have done in the past, not with a film cam, but it should work the same; have the actor tilt their head to the side, rest the lens on their shoulder and have them cheat their hands to look natural and centered. That one is much harder to get to look right though since the actor has to point more to the side than feels normal. It might be further complicated by the shorter reach of a childs arms.

I couldn't more strongly disagree with this notion. I get the idea your trying to put across, but these things do matter. I haven't seen SDM yet, so I won't comment directly on the film, but that attitude implies (or at least, I am prompted to infer) that story is everything and image is nothing, or at least image can be sacrificed for story. As someone who worked on a feature (not as DoP) that had excelent story but terrible shooting (not just a format problem) I know that bad images affect an audience. I expect SDM had provocative and emotional images despite the format, and somehow the format worked for the story at hand. But format isn't the only thing that imparts quality to an image, and that doesn't mean a blanket statement like image quality isn't very important will be read as true. Its like saying acting doesn't matter if the dialogue is good enough. I suppose more than anything I object to the comment about wasting money on 35mm film. Film making is a balance, and yes film isn't cheap, but by no means is it a detrimental cost to the production value of a film. If we were talking about a 200k film maybe, but most indies and certainly all studio features can well afford film. Hell, if all things are equal and you need a film print for distribution, its going to cost you at least 100k-200k for either format, digital or film. A DI is way more expensive than a photochemical print. I understand that your trying to put forward an idea of 'rise up against the technical aspect of film making and focus on the story' but as a cinematographer, the technical aspect of a film is part of the story. The net effect of all technical decisions made will ingrain a tangible feeling subliminally in the minds of the viewer. Now if your saying that we should not be exclusively bound to the technical side of cinematography with little regard for story, then I would agree, but it doesn't read quite that way on the net.

Sounds like my story. I've worked in news for years, freelance and DoP on films. I can say being on set is a lot more fun than doing a Cluster F. presser day in and day out. Expect longer hours, expect to work harder to find work, expect not to get paid that much, expect to have to string for news and freelance to make by. Like you said build those conects to the film industry. I would say though that you might be ahead of the game, depending on how you attack your job as a photog. Some photogs are journalists more than photographers, and some visa versa. I was always the photographer more than a photojournalist. meaning I couldn't care less what the soundbites were, or the writting of the script, that I left in reporters hands. To me it was about getting the shots that told the same or parallel story without words. If thats you then camera movement and light will be your best asset. If your the former, then story and charecter will be your strong suite (and of course you know how to support that with the lens) I think years of 8 hour days shooting news will give you a good sense of the lens and how light works. You may or may not have put it all together yet. Are you a photog who endlessly repeats the montra 'zoom with your feet?' if so then try something new, because in film the shot size and focal lengths often have nothing to do with each other. You can do a close up on a wide lens and wide shot on a tight lens, just depends how you want the image to render. But I figure if your leaning towards film you've likely already shot a short or two, and have been trying new stuff all the time with your news job. I spent a half decade selfishly and unabashedly using the news to experiment. If you shoot every interview the same way then try something crazy. Seriously. You aren't doing it right if your ND doesn't come to you every now and then asking what the hell you were thinking with an interview or shot. Pay very close attention to the manutia of the light in a room and how it works with your image. Got a toplight? Turn it off, cut the chord. Force yourself to walk into a room and find the light. If you can look at a window, and know how light is hitting the room and where the good light is, you will be much better off when you must tell your gaffer and key grip how to recreate that light. Also forget everything you may have learned at an NPPA workshop. Often in tv shadows and contrast are frowned uppon. In film contrast is everything. Forget the two omnis at 45% with tough spun, forget the reporter sandwich. Look at images with good lighting, figure out what you like about them and learn how to create an image with seperation and light. By now you will likely have a good sense of how you like to compose a shot, so just go with instinct on that. You may have done/are doing any or all of those things, but thats what helped me. When I was making news I was really thinking if this were a no budget short film, how would i shoot it. Work in news with that attitude (hey your CP, whos gonna question you) and you will get the chops up. Then shoot a bunch of short films and no budget projects to get your reel and contacts up.

I think the black level is a project setting in avid. If you have footage whose blacks are 7.5 already, but the project is set to 0 and the export 7.5 IRE black is on, then your blacks would be 15 IRE. Check the blacks in your scope and see if that's the case. If so look at your project settings and capture settings.

with a 2500 you will need to run it off a 30 amp breaker at least, 50 would be better. The only place you're likely to see that is on a washing machine hookup or an electric range. If your ballast accepts 220, wire it for that and attach a 3 or 4 prong twist plug. Or better yet put a 60amp bates on the ballast, and make a distro cable to connect the dryer hookup to bates. Thats pretty much your only option. a 2500 on a 20amp 120 edison will pop the breaker before it even strikes.

Yes, but if it were me and I had to do lowcon in the digital realm(ie, anything done past the lens) I would leave that to the final color grade. Gama corrections in the blacks in camera lead to very strange response curves, especially where the shadow gama meets midtone gama. In post you would have more ability to remove contrast, but both methods will introduce noise into the shadows. But at least if you decide to scale it back in the grade you won't be burdened with burned in noise, like you would if you adjust your in camera settings. This only applies to high detail recordings. RAW, HDCAM-SR, uncompressed, etc are all fine working the detail and contrast out in post. If your working in a highly compressed medium like HDV, do it in camera. You need at least 10 bits recorded to work with. That said my preference for just about anything is glass in front of lens when possible. But as always, test. My threshold for noise isn't the same as others, and different cameras apply gama in different ways. If you have 5 filters in front of your lens, maybe you can think of other filters that would best be served with digital equivalents rather than lowcon? Color tints (tobacco, coral, grads etc) might have less impact than locon if done digitally?

Do you know if the gear is labeled Panavision or Cinecam?

not a great solution, it won't meet all your requirements, but a JVC HD-250 has genlock, HDSDI out, and can shoot true 24p and 60p as its upper end. You can't control exact frame rate, its 24p, or 30p/60i (which can be turned into 720 60p easily, and it shoots it as true 60p) Might not get you where you want to be, but it will get you close for less if your pressed on budget. as for genlock, the JVC 250, and the canon AH-1 and XL-HD1 both have options with genlock. Those are the only prosumer HD cameras I know of with genlock. Beyond that almost every full size ENG or digi cine camera will have a genlock function.

I have been saying this for years! With digital food you can have fewer cooks in the kitchen, and you don't need any trained chefs to make gourmet food. Chris is clearly a Luddite, and I suspect he has some kind of financial ties to the analog food industry. Anyway he can't know what he's talking about because I read a PDF on this the other day. I hear pretty soon we are going to have near uncompressed food at over 4,000 taste samples/bite! Food is dead, long live me, internet guy!

Its hard to know if 2k lights will be enough light, since we don't know what your rating your film stock/camera, or what stop your going for. The space lights should work, though I don't think they will be as soft as you think they will. The softness of space lights depends on how they are spread appart and how high up they are. With just 4 of them there might be too much separation, making the light hard and casting multiple shadows. I know your not a fan of the 20x, but look into it a little deeper it might be what you need. A 20x bounce topper, maybe some source 4s on the floor. maybe even add smoke to the room and use the shafts of light from the s4 to break up the black background a bit. Don't know if that fits your budget or look, just throwin ideas out there.

Although that's more academic than practical, since there are no witness marks on the barrel and the numbers are spaced apart too far to use a tape measured focus. (its better to feel stupid now, than to feel stupid during dailies of soft footage)

UUUUHHHGGG......lets leave her out of this. I know it was meant as tongue in cheek, but I do have to live with her and occasionally interview her, and the whole election left a sour taste in my mouth. I don't want Alaska to be associated with what America thinks she is. To be honest she is not a true Alaskan, her character is not that of the honest hard working Alaskans that built this state. Lets keep this forum non political. There are a lot of opinions about her in this state, pro and con, but the one common ground up here is its no longer the lower 48s business anymore. We will let you talk about our politicians again in 2012 (hopefully not, but maybe) (btw I feel its important to note: She does not have anything to do with the incentive program, it was conceived, written and approved by our legislature, and SP has nothing to do with approving applicants) Saul: good points. Yes we do have only 2-3 experienced film crews (depending on who you put where), which can service a couple of indies at a time. I would compare Alaska to NM when you first got your incentive. Obviously 10 years hence we might find ourselves with a lot more crew and a lot more work, but for now, we just have a limited selection of the hardest working crews in America (and the crews that complain the least) And no I didn't mean to imply NM was just desert. Actually I was trying to suggest that we have every kind of landscape, including deserts, mountains, plains, big skies, big foliage, rain forests, places that are snow free most of the year, rural areas, villages, and even big cities, etc. Worded it badly of course, but that was my intent.

Woah, disregard the above, it seems they passed a better law than I thought. From the states website: * Must spend at least $100,000 in a consecutive 24 month period. * 30 percent transferable tax credit on qualified expenditures. * Claim an extra 10% for wages paid to Alaska residents. * Claim an extra 2% if filming in a rural area. * Claim an extra 2% if filming between October 1 and March 30. * No salary cap per employee per production. No requirement for distribution, no guarantor needed. Seems much more aimed at indies than NM. I do believe rural area would be counted even in somewhat larger cities near Anchorage that is close to production centers, and very close to hotels and transpo. I think Wasilla/Palmer even count as rural, and thats not more than 30 minutes from north Anchorage. Link to state incentive website

We have an incentive program here in Alaska just a bit better than New Mexico. Its a newly minted law that gives a 25% general rebate, 10% for local hires, 1% for shooting in rural areas, and 1% for shooting off season (anytime but summer) Also we have no state tax on anything film related, and in most cities we have no sales tax. Once you get your rebates, you can take them to an oil company who does pay royalties on the oil they produce, and they will buy the rebates, giving the production co. cash on hand. 200 million in rebates have been approved for the next 5 years. We also (finally) have opened a film office. And if you talk to the right people you can wrangle really talented local crews and gear. From the looks of it, our program has way less red tape than NM. (that said, I doubt we are in competition with NM, unless all you want is desert. Past that I think we are more in competition with Canada)

28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds. (bonus points to anyone who gets the reference.)

I saw this site a few weeks ago and I have been thinking on the system for a while now. It seems like it could have its uses, but its real advantage in my eyes is adding new ways to work, rather than replacing tried and true methods. Unless they have you sign a contract saying you will only use their technique then its up to the artist to decide how it gets implemented. I don't see a day where I will light a set with one light bounced around. I think in a hybrid system it could be very useful, combining rls with standard techniques. Not to mention those damn shots where you want a few dappled highlights punching through a window, or want a very subtle kicker in a place that nothing can really get into and do the job. I am working off the assumption that the system is cheap, IE under 300/day. If a 1.2k costs under 200, then I see no reason a box of reflectors should cost more than 100/day. If it were that cheap then I could see using it if it were available locally. But if this were the cost of an extra G&E truck, no way. Come to think of it, it kind of reminds me of the opening scenes (and later scenes) of 'Fifth Element'. Azize! Light!

When shooting an LCD projected image, it is important to note the grid of pixels can create a moire pattern. You might need to defocus the projector lens a tad to keep this from happening (also simply staging action away from the screen will naturally soften the background, and give you more room to light, but will increase the size of screen required.)

are you typically a DP on set? Or production? Or direction? I don't usually handle the overarching order of shots on set. I will leave that to the production side. I will express my needs, for say 'by 5pm we need to be wrapping at this location, or we will loose light," or "we need to shoot this wide before lunch so the sun is on this side of the house", or what ever my camera concern is with regard to schedule. The producers usually have a lot more considerations to take into account from all departments, and a good producer will be able to write a schedule that's realistic and allows enough time to work. I will coordnate with the director to line the script. Not a full linning, just a few meetings that starts broad and gets as in depth as the director wishes to go. Sometimes I am furnished with complete storyboards, sometimes I have a pretty open pallet to bounce ideas and see what they like, and then fill in the details later. Once a general plan is establish I will line the script completely. I don't usually work with story boards since I can't draw and for even a short film it takes way too long. All I need to know is what the general action is, what kind of shot (OTS, wide, medium, oner on dolly, etc) and go through until the whole thing is lined. Then I make a shot list breakdown based on that scene for scene. Storyboards, in my opinion, are best left to elaborate sequences, or productions that have the money and prep time to hire an artist to sit with me and the director and go over the shot list. Then I coordinate with producers to see what kind of time limits I will have at a given location. If I feel I need more time to do more elaborate setups I will tell them that, and see if they can squeeze the schedule. Often it does mean trimming shot lists or seperating into the 'must haves' and the 'if theres time' shots. Then once the producers have the full shooting schedule, I order my shot lists to match the days, so I have a list for every day. Should something change during the shoot I have my master list so I can update any lists when something changes. And like Adrian said, blocking always changes. Always changes. Best not to have put days into storyboards that might get thrown out on the day. If blocking changes, its easy to adapt a shot list to the change. Sometimes you sit on set as the blocking changes, crossing out some shots and adding new ones. A plan to be quick and flexible is best. That said, I would love to hear other peoples proccess. I am sure its slightly different between different DPs and director combos.

Ditto what stuart says - its forum policy to use real names. smaller HMIs come with optional DC/AC balasts that can plug into mains, battery or DC source, like the joker 200, 400, 800. A rectifier (4 diodes in a full bridge configuration, usually with smoothing capacitors) can only change AC-DC, and are not able to change volts while doing this (apart from the voltage loss across the diode). If you have DC power and need AC, you need an inverter. Inverters are much more design and part intensive and so cost much more. Add to that its hard to find one over 1000w (sometimes hard to find one over 500w) and they are not too efficient at what they do. If you have batteries see if the jokers would work. Otherwise get a genny. If you run DC to tungsten you need to find globes that are rated for that voltage. If you run a 120vac globe on 30vdc, it will be dim and orange, just like you had a squeezer on it. Its also not good for the life of the globe.

white double nets? that is odd. silks with yellow rims are double silks, white rims are single silks. I have heard them called single stop and double stop silks, but I don't know for a fact if they cut one and two stops respectively, I choose them more on feel than numbers. Doubles are a little heavier fabric than the singles.

forgot the other questions: Most 16mm film these days is 1R film, meaning there is sprocket holes on only one side of the gate. Unless you are buying old film you really won't have to worry. Just check with the rep that its 1R and your golden. 1R will also work in most regular 16mm cameras. Only a few require 2R film, and I think kodak's website has a guide that lists all that need 2R. Biggest difference is quality and grain. Quality comes in better skin tones, more natural color reproduction, no aliasing effect when shooting high detail patterns, of course as is always talked about wider dynamic range (meaning it can handle contrast way better, and gives you more exposure lattitude, in case you want to print up or down, where video might fall apart) It also gives you better highlight handling, when something gets overexposed its a bit smoother transition into blown out. The best thing you can do to prepare for the first shoot is read all you can on the workflow. Read all you can so that when you get your film back, your not destroyed because there's a giant scratch on the whole roll, or the film got fogged everytime you took your eye off the eyepeice, etc. There are a few things when working with film you need to think about that you might not concern yourself when shooting video. Make sure you know what those are, especially if nobody on your set has any film experience too. If you can get an experienced first AC. They can keep an eye out for you and teach you how best to work with the new tool. Goodluck.

16mm runs at 36ft/min. So a 400 ft load is about 11 minutes, 100 ft is about 2 min 45 sec. Super16 is better with handling grain, since essentially it extends the frame to get the wide aspect ratio. It shares (roughly) the top, bottom and one side of a regular 16mm frame. If you wanted to put regular 16 into an 1.85 or 1.78 you must matte part of the top and bottom of the frame. super16 is already in a 1.78 ratio, so to get to 1.85 involves very little matting. If your goal was (for sake of argument) 4:3, then there would be no quality or DOF difference between the two, since you'd be cropping the sides off the super 16 to get to an equivalent gate of regular16. There is a slight impact on DOF at a given field of view and impact Field of View of a given focal length lens between (r16 will have more dof compared to s16, s16 will make a given focal length look wider compared to r16, and visa versa). This is not very pronounced, certainly not as much as say, the jump from 16 to 35. Its much closer towards 16.

Aren't you prepping two features simultaneously right now bergy? Don't you have work to do? I know I shouldn't have laid off the guy who bangs the drum and the guy who does the whipping. GET BACK TO WORK!