Andrew Jackson

Blah, didn't make the edit on time:

Thanks for trying to help me solve this, guys. Umm...I didn't see flicker through the viewfinder, although I was mainly watching the actors performances when I was running the camera. And from the 4 shots -> 3 were in the same room(verse, reverse, master) and then another was shooting from outside the room as our actress walked past the camera and into the room where the dialogue takes place. Hard to tell if it's coming from a certain light, but in our master it seems worse than in the verse, reverse shot. Our master is a side/2-shot, and the others are over-the-shoulders, so we actually do see different parts of the walls.

I was using a crystal sync camera running at 24 frames per second with a 180 degree shutter. The sync light never came on (except at the very beginning of course), so I assumed that it stayed at a constant 24, although the equipment we were using is old. I didn't hear any noise coming from the fluorescent lights.

We have a few shots from different angles. I had mentioned we used a 3500k compact fluorescent light as a fill, as the overheads were all rated for 3500k. We only used one of the compact bulbs though and it was focused on the actors, so the flicker couldn't have come from that one. The most visible flicker can be seen by staring at the walls (although you can see it on the actors, it's just harder to catch with them moving). I believe we do have enough coverage to edit around and not make the problem apparent.

Although I've shot 3 films now, I still feel like I know about 5% of what there is to know....so bare with me here. A buddy of mine shot in the same location a year ago, in black and white, on 16mm non-sync camera (although, he also shot at 24 fps and 180 degree shutter). He claimed he didn't get any flicker. So, my thoughts

1) either something about the lights were different then

2) black and white doesn't show flicker as well

3) what is actually "flickering" is the color temp, and that's why it wasn't really seen on black and white (mine is shot in color)

4) he just didn't notice the flicker (he had a couple of fast cuts and lots of movement in the frame).

If you have the option, I would meticulously scout the locations you will be shooting in. When you are dealing with several flourescent fixtures, you're bound to have a few ballasts that are old or starting to burn out. This will create pulsing in the lamps and a color temperature shift (which gets worse as the ballast starts to decay). Find out the ballast specs and have production purchase a few extra.

 

As far as bulbs, Philips makes Colortone C50 bulbs that are rated at 5500k, and Alto bulbs rated at 3500k and 3000k.

 

Also, test the breakers that the fixtures are on so that you will have flexibility when changing bulbs quickly without damaging the ballast. I always avoid "hot-swapping" flourescent bulbs whenever possible because the pins tend to arc against the metal in older fixtures, which can severely damage the ballast and cause injury.

My words of wisdom: be careful. I did a lot of research before filming under fluorescent lights for my senior thesis. I looked up numbers on the bulbs, made sure they were all the same, and called the facility operations for the building, in which case they told me all the bulbs were less than a year old, and all were 3500k. I bought some compact fluorescent bulbs, rated for 3500K, and put them in fixtures to use as fill lights and such (and would balance the color in telecine). I did some reading about flicker problems in several books and forums, all said I would be fine....but my footage came back with some horrible flicker (some shots/angles worse than others). I didn't know why, but what you are saying Phil, with the the ballast units being old, makes sense. I was so confused the past day trying to look up what could have gone wrong...

If you're serious about this piece, I definitely wouldn't rely on the "practical" lights that are already there...use your own units if you can.

I'm also needing a chip chart, and just recently I had come up with an idea, although it probably won't work. If I bought a graycard, then went to wal-mart and bought like a "paint variety pack" for $10 that contains a little bit of white, black, blue, yellow, red, green, etc. and I painted little circles on the graycard, would that work? I'm trying to be cheap, a la any film person. My options are pretty much

A) use only a graycard

B) use a color chart that someone will lend me but is just colors printed out on a piece of paper and slapped on graycard

C) do the paint method

Thanks!

I'm a senior doing a sync-sound film project on 16mm. For our sound recording, my school offers three options, but I'm having a hard time deciding which one to take. I obviously want great sound quality, which I heard the Nagra provides, but I have some issues with A) getting Nagra tapes and B) transferring the sound from the tape to my computer. I would be willing to send off the Nagra tape to get a high quality transfer if there is anywhere that does this, as I heard transferring from the port on the Nagra directly into a computer will hurt the sound quality.

Any tips and suggestions on what to use? And if the Nagra is my best choice, anyone know where to get good quality Nagra tapes for a fairly cheap...and where I could get it transferred to a digital format that I could use in my computer?

Or if I can't use the Nagra for these reasons, what would be my next best choice...

I'm not sure about different "versions" of each or exactly which ones my school offers, but here are some sample pics...these look almost or exactly like the ones I have access to:

Nagra (reel tape):

http://www.sls.fi/Sparatalet/Bilder/Nagra.gif

Marantz (compact flash):

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...%3DdQb%26sa%3DN

DAT (digital audio tape):

http://www.gbaudio.co.uk/images/dap1.jpg

(this picture is probably the one farthest from the actual item I can use. It looks something like this, but I don't think it is the exact)

Thanks bunches.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. We appreciate it.

 

I completely understand where you are coming from, I'm the same way. :-)

Stay tuned at that link, we're working on getting a .torrent of the entire series up at hi-res/bitrate. Figured that those who want to download it would also want it at a higher resolution.

will do! Thanks dude

sweet stuff, thanks!

Hmm...you may be against this, and that might be the point, but how do you actually download it to your computer? I hate watching stuff on my computer and I always try to save videos that I might go back and watch on a DVD so I can just watch it on my TV

Well, regardless of whether or not you were working for less than they were willing to pay, the truth is you can't make a good living on $150/day. Most likely, the producers of that film will never call you with a job for a rate higher than $150/day. You've basically told them that that's what you think you're worth, so they won't see any reason to pay you more.

Actually, there is a set scale rate for A.C.'s. Union scale for a 1st is $36.77/hr for the first eight hours (OT after that), but most "A" 1st's get tech rate, which is $43.85/hr. The rate for 2nd's is $33.91/hr. Actually, I just realized I'm looking at an old rate card, so the rates are higher now (probably by a couple bucks). But I know some 1st's who won't accept a job for less than $50/hr. Sure, they are very experienced 1st's, but the point is that we all have to set standards for ourselves. If you work for very low rates all of the time you're not only hurting yourself, but you're hurting everyone that works in your position by bringing the rates down overall. The steadicam community has experienced this over the last ten years, and now some operators are making close to HALF what they were making ten years ago. I guarantee you the studios and producers aren't making any less, they're making a hell of a lot more! And the cost of living certainly hasn't gone down.

So the trick is to figure out how not to get screwed while still working. Personally, I'd rather work less days for more money.

Hey Brad, is there any site/list/place I can look that shows all the union pay scales for different positions? I'm really curious, and it sounds like you might know!

Hey all, I'm looking for a tool that I could use to clean out dust from a lens. I have some canned air, but I want something that can be used anytime and doesn't run out. I see many things, like these rocket blowers (http://search.ebay.com/rocket-blower_W0QQ_trksidZm37QQfromZR40), but I'm not really sure how good they are, or what size to even get if they are good. I'll be using them for film cameras, for cleaning the gate.

Thanks!

This is a pretty quick question that probably doesn't deserve it's own thread, but I searched and couldn't find anything related to it. Anyways, I'm going to be shining a light into a mirror and filming it. How would you take a reading of this? I'm guessing with a reflective meter, but I'm not really sure. Any help would be much appreciated!

What about attaching it with a very weak adhesive of some sort? Something that will only last until a small gust of wind blows through?

that's a good idea, but I'm not really sure what that adhesive would be or where I would get it

Not really sure where else to put this, so here I go:

I'm trying to get a shot this weekend where I'm on a leaf hanging from a tree, and it falls to the ground. The camera is going to be on the leaf while it's hanging, and it follows it down to the ground. I've been thinking of ways for this leaf to look attached, and then fall after hanging for about 20 seconds. I'm not really sure how to accomplish this. I've thought of sticking a small/weak piece of clear tape to the leaf stem, attaching it to the tree, and then having a really thin piece of fishing line to pull the two apart and let the fishing line fall with the leaf.....Any other suggestions? This is all I got at the moment. I'm sure there is a better way.

The camera will think you have T160 loaded (the fastest film that camera is able to recognize).

Rick

Thanks! From my tests it looked as if the reflected light meter was reading 200....close enough :P

You will get more consistant results using an external light meter. With the costs of film, development and transfer being what they are as well as the format offering the least margin of error in terms of exposure, I would strongly recommend using the incident meter.

I was just going to use it as a reflecting light meter when having a practical in the frame or when needing to like film a television screen or something like that.

Put your camera on a tripod and use a film cartridge that you know is being read accurately and then compare that to when there is no film in the cartridge, just make sure the camera is pointed at the exact same scene and to not let more than a couple of seconds to go by when comparing if this test is being done outdoors.

The only problem is that I do not have a super8 film cartridge anywhere. I have an incident light meter, and I did the grey card thing....but I'd rather do it mathematically than by using the meters...

I'm planning on using my Minolta Autopak-8 D4 as a reflected meter, but I'm not sure exactly what the ISO would be set at on the meter without a film cartridge in it. Anyone know? Thanks!

I did a test roll and got it back recently. In it, I had 3 lights:

softbox -> ungelled - backlight for water hitting a window

Tota light with a 1/2 CTB Gel

Open-Faced focusable spot -> ungelled

The light off the focusable spot was giving me 40 footcandles on the subject, and the tota was giving me 20 footcandles. I did not use an 85 filter.

Now, when I got the tests back, I could not make out any of the blue, not even the slightest bit. I told the lab to do a workprint based off the graycard shot at the head of the roll (exposed normally in tungston light, no 85 filter). When the lights were set up though, I could make out a little blue, but not on the workprint. I was just hoping for a slight blue, but I got nowhere near enough. Anyone know what happened? Does the other two tungston lights just make the 1/2 CTB gel on the one light not show up? Show I just gel them all at 1/2 CTB to get a slight blue look?

ah, that would be nice, but I have no money and I'm in an area that doesn't have many of them....actually, I've been talking to people over myspace/facebook/on my campus and no one knows any.

Thanks guys....you give much helpful info!

By the way, what exactly is a CTS gel?

This is my first dive into color, and for the scene I'm planning on shooting will be interior at night. I was originally planning on blocking off the windows, but I believe I'll just shoot it at night. Anyways, I'm hoping to use some "naturalistic" lighting; there will be lamps around the the room and I want it to appear like all of the light is coming from those lamps - with an orangish color....

I'll be using 500T film, and I have tungston balanced lights. I don't believe the practicals alone will be enough to light the room, so I was hoping to use some of the tungston lights and match it, color wise, to the 60-watt bulbs....what sort of gels would be used for doing this? Any tips?

Thanks,

Andrew

So, where do you live :P

Anyways, thanks for the reply. I'm just going to be dealing with a kid that I don't know well on that day too. If I used make-up it would probably be on someone I knew and someone that knew acting - got some theater friends. Anyways, I'll give it some serious thought, and some testing.

thanks for the tutorial. It looks pretty good. I'm afraid that the old age effect won't look convincing. There is always actually going after an older actor, but I don't want to really deal with getting an older actor because I'm going to have to do some ADR, and I'm afraid he might not have the patience for that...

You need to justify a source of light. You say there's no streetlight, so the obvious choice is moonlight. Use the biggest lamp you've got as a backlight or kicker. Place it up high, and far enough back to give a even spread of illumination. If it's a tungsten lamp you may want to use 1/4 CTB or something to create a slightly cold look.

 

Then you'll need something to light the characters faces. Maybe there is light spilling from the house they are outside of. Or you could simulate light from the dash with a Kino car kit or other soft source.

 

Lightning can be achieved a number of ways. Strobe lights like you find at DJ equipment stores are an easy way to create this effect. You'll need something fairly powerful to cover a wide shot, say a 3k Strobe.

 

If you have access to a fire truck then you should have no problem with creating rain effects. Remember, rain needs to be backlit to show up on film. Your Moonlight lamp should take care of this nicely, or you can augment the effect with other lamps.

 

Absolutely avoid Day for Night. It is far easier to create these effects at night. Red filters make things go red, unless you are shooting Black & White. Do not use with colour film unless you want everything red.

 

500T is the way to go.

Thanks for the reply. I'll definately keep what you said in mind. I guess the biggest problem I'm facing now is if I want a long shot, how to light it properly while the rain is going.....I won't be using my lights so I don't really want to damage them, and I dont' want to get electrocuted. I might just have to avoid the long shots. This is a student film, and I think the most powerful light I'll have available to me is a 1k (probably have 2 of them, and the rest of the lights are like 750 watts....I'll have about 3 of them)

I've been looking around for awhile on the net for a tutorial/tips on doing old-age makeup. In my film, I'm wanting to do a dissolve from an older man into a younger man's face (representing the two are the same person). I really want the eyes/nose to be the same, so the only way I can think of doing this is through make-up.

Over the summer I actually got some materials to do prosthetics. I bought some casting latex, ultracal, clay, etc., but I never got time to mess with it. I'm not sure if I would use it here or not, but I'm pretty lost on exactly how to do this. There are some websites I found, but I don't think it would look that good on close-ups. A good example of what I want is in the movie Jackass, where they put the old age make-up on the characters...I think this looks good and I would be happy with a result like that. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Andrew

For my student film this year, I'm bumping it up a bit. One of my short film ideals involves two men in a car, while it's lightning, raining, and night outside. The car is sitting outside of a house, and NOT under any lights (like a streetlight for example). The film has to be edited on film (no digital effects), so I'm trying to figure how I could do this....

1) The men in the car: I don't want them normally exposed, but I want the audience to be able to see details. When the lightning flashes, I probably want it a bit overexposed (I'm going to be watching some movies with rain and lightning in them to try to get some ideas how the light/sound/shot composition all works together and different ways to cheat things)

2) The lightning: Just set up a powerful light and either blast it off and on, or hold something in front of it until the lightning is cued.

3) The Rain: in tight shots, maybe use a garden hose or something....for longer shots, a firetruck (that I most likely have access to

4) Night: Do day for night (which I'm not sure how I would do that....someone told me a red filter) or do night for night....probably much harder

The main problem I'm seeing is having lights set up to create enough light for the inside of a car, and for the lighting, and having water coming down at the same time. Anyone have any suggestions?

Oh, by the way, I'll be shooting on a 16mm camera, probably a bolex or an Arri-S, with 500T film (or 200T if you brainiacs think, with a certain combination, it would work better)

thanks!