Matthew Beals

Update on the above: It is now paid. 4 day shoot at $200/day. If you are the owner of a camera body or accessories we would rent that from you at an additional rate. This is the opportunity to get on the ground floor of an exciting project and to gain the top slot at consideration for shooting the feature itself. We want to shoot this during the final week of October or the first week of November (TBD). We will shoot on either the RED Camera or Canon 5D--your participation will influence this decision. contact me at bealsonwheels AT gmail dot com

Seeking a Director of Photography to shoot a trailer for a feature film on spec in the New York tri-state area. This is an unpaid job and the trailer will be part of a pitch-package for us to get funding and build a team for shooting the feature itself. The script, “The Hard Candy Kid,” was written over a two year period and is a groundbreaking tragicomedy set in a fairytale version of America. Part-fiction, part documentary, it calls for visual styles as varied as vintage Technicolor and gritty black and white news reel footage. If the right DP were onboard--this film would put them on the map. (Films of interest/influence to this project: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, The Night of the Hunter, Dr. Strangelove, The Wizard of Oz, A Clockwork Orange, JFK) As the Writer/Director of this film--who also comes from a DP background--I’m looking for someone extremely artistic, ambitious and collaborative. Someone who wants to change cinema and believes it can be done with an independent film. It goes without saying that the DP of the trailer will have the top slot at being considered to shoot the feature itself (which will be paid). I believe the trailer will stand alone as a work of art in it's own right. Contact me if you are interested and let me know about your experience and ambitions as a cameraman. I can send you the synopsis of the film and the script for the trailer. We also have a video of a "text-based" animatic version of it I can send you a link for. We want to shoot this sometime between October 24-31st --ideally on the RED Camera. Please message me personally with any questions. bealsonwheels AT GMAIL dot com Thank You!

It looks like I'll be shooting a computer monitor with this camera. I'm planning on shooting this whole piece in 24P at 1/48 of a shutter. Upon reading the manual I see it recommends adjusting the ECS Mode when shooting computer screens. My only concern is that the shots that include monitors and people cut together seamlessly with the shots that have just people. Anyone have any thoughts on the right way going about this? My original plan was to adjust the computer monitors refresh rate to 60Hz and keep my 1/48 Shutter. I suppose the great thing about all this is I will have my field monitor to tell me if the flicker is gone or not. Just curious to know of those that have played with the ECS Mode. Thanks for any advice!

Hello there, Just wanted to know of any rigs people have used that are ideal for going handheld with this camera. I am aware of the Left/Right Hand grip setup with an onboard monitor but I am in search of other options. I am especially concerned about shooting when the lens height is at my waist level and I have to move around a bit. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Photoworks processes the motion picture kodak stocks but they don't sell the stocks already spooled into 36 Exposure cartridges like RGB did. Anyone know a resource for getting the 35mm Kodak Motion Picture stocks already spooled?! Thanks in advance...

Hello there, This is a question that spans the realms of HD, Video conversion/compression and broadcast TV. So perhaps it belongs under this forum section. I have shot a few commercials for a cable network. They do all of their post, editing and broadcast in-house. I recently witnessed the airing of 2 commercials I shot for them. Both of them were shot in the same day on the same HD Tape with Sony's F-900. I was surprised to find that one of them looked more blown out than I had shot it. What I mean is, the highlights and the contrast both seemed boosted a few notches beyond what I had shot it at. I was working with a 14-inch HD monitor and properly calibrated color bars. I know what I shot was fine. Also, the other spot that existed on the same tape, seemed fine on TV. The spot that looked hotter than I remember was definitely lit to be a hotter, higher contrast looking commercial--which I knew was semi-risky when trying to pull this look off with video. But still, my hot spots were usually around 80 IRE and never much higher. My questions are regarding what the cause of this could be: During the digitizing process of HD, is it possible for highlights to get boosted? Or during some sort of video down-convert or transfer? How about when an image is sent through a satellite, do things change? (I already cringe at the look of digital cable, especially when there is lots of movement involved. Seems like I'm watching a giant pixelized quicktime movie sometimes.) Another question being this: Is it possible for a video monitor to show you detail in an image that is in fact blown-out and not being recorded to tape? I know we calibrate color bars so we know what we're seeing but we also know that once something is blown out on video, it is gone. So is it even possible for a monitor to see something that isn't even there, in the end, on the tape?! This of course makes me question weather I should contact the network or not. I know they were thrilled about the outcome of the spots. It's just my eye that don't like 'em. Who knows, curious if others have had similar experiences. I suppose the overall lesson here is to continue to veer towards underexposing video as one always should... Thanks in advance for any thoughts...

Du-All Camera is great with Beaulieu repairs. It costs nothing for you to drop your camera off and get a quote. They are in NYC and their number is 212-643-1042. Feel free to tell them I sent yah!

Du-All Camera is great with Beaulieu repairs. It costs nothing for you to drop your camera off and get a quote. They are in NYC and their number is 212-643-1042. Feel free to tell them I sent yah!

You should also be sure to record "Room Tone" at every location you shoot in. Once you have completed gathering all of the coverage of your scene have the entire crew be completely silent. Leave all lights that were on ON, if a window was open the whole time, leave it open still. Then position the boom mic in an average position between all the positions it had been held at and record about a minute of dead "silence." This will help you later in possibly creating a bed of ambient sound that will make each cut all the more seamless sounding. Also, keep in mind that you should also eliminate sound where you can. For example, an air conditioner or an open window. In the event you HAVE to keep the AC on or a refrigerator, be sure to record the "wild sond" of JUST the AC or JUST the refrigerator. All of this can help you in post for the purpose of smoothing things out. Sometimes, when there are too many pops between cuts, the answer becomes adding and looping these wild sounds to create a new type of silence. This is last resort of course. The answer is usually all about EQ and crossfading...

Hello there, As many DPs do, I like to create overhead blueprints of locations that I shoot in. They usually include important info like measurements of the space, lighting fixture placement, camera placement etc. What software programs have others used to create these more efficiently? Any reccomendations would be helpful. It's about time I upgrade the ole pencil and paper technique... Thanks in advance.

I absolutely have to know what other DPs feel about this film. Personally, I completely appreciated this film for its willingness to take risks in its cinematography. Some may call it "risks" and others may call it "bad cinematography" seeing as a consistent aesthetic of this film was to have mis-framed and soft to out-of-focus shots. And I don't mean mis-framed in the hip way that music videos and commercials employ, I mean just plain bad framing. It really made me feel HORRIBLY uncomfortable to see many of the shots. And seeing as the subject matter largely had to do with discomfort, distance and sadness, it worked for me. The whole film isn't like this. It consistently combines these shots with very wide, basic, frontal minimilist framing. And it has takes lasting minutes long that force you into either hypnosis or boredom...which I love as well (big tarkovsky fan). So has anyone seen this? Or have you all just trusted the critics that have bashed it into all hell?!

Hello there, the film Elephant was actually shot on 35mm film. What you were probably reacting to is the 4:3 aspect ratio that the film was shot in. The device your referring to is called a Steadicam which stabalizes the camera and enables the camera operator to walk through doors and run around without causing camera shake. It takes a strong back and a lot of practice to learn to balance the rig and achieve good results (especially a heavy 35mm camera). But that film was probably my favorite this year! Great example of some truly poetic steadycam work, amazing use of ramping film speeds and gorgeously shallow depth of field. (the steadycam, long take aesthetic was also applied to his other film "Gerry," also a great flick.) I haven't seen the making of though. Gotta buy the DVD but its a shame I'm so cheap.

I can't offer you much knowledge about surf cinematography as I've never done it before. There is, however, an underwater housing made for the Bolex. I've never heard of one for the Arri-S. But as far as shooting surfing with the Bolex water housing, it seems pretty illogical. For one reason, the underwater housing is extremely heavy and bulky (it's a hell of a lot lighter if your swimming with it underwater!) and the second reason being that it is designed for use with a 10mm lens only. There is an external knob lebeled with F-Stop increments that corresponds with interior gears that set your exposure on the lens (it's assumed that you just set the lens to its hyperfocal distance and leave it). It also has an external clear window that aligns with a pin. When the pin is centered in the window frame it gives you an idea of what your framing is. The housing disables the use of the cameras eyepiece. Who knows, perhaps you can fit a longer lens in there and make it work somehow. But then your faced with getting a steady image while in water! Seems ridiculous to me. There's gotta be a better way. Another thing to mention is that salt water is perhaps the biggest enemy to any film or video camera. It just corrodes and destroys all it can. Same goes for sand. With the bolex underwater housing, for example, it is recommended to first douse the unit in freshwater before stowing it after a day of shooting. There's my 2 cents. I'm sure someone around here has shot surfing! No?

If by chance you are shooting on an Arri SR of sorts then some rental houses rent out ground glasses with 16:9 markings on them. Usually costs about $25.00 and your camera's original ground glass is used as the deposit. Adds the simple pleasure to have the etchings there before you while your eye is on the eyepiece operating.

Hey, I know a DP who had the exact same issue using Tiffen NDs with the XL-1. Allegedly the solution is to use Schneider brand NDs instead. I'm sure other guys can chime into the technical difference between the glass of these two brands of filters. But I was told it has something to do with their differing nature of glass. Anyone hear the same?