EricUlbrich

wow. Quite hilarious. It seems that he is on the warpath.

I agree with David as well. When I light, I go for the master first and plan ahead for the punch in's. Perhaps though one of the most interesting things that one of my mentors said to me was; "dont worry about the master being the most brilliant lighting setup ever, wait for the closeup, then make your move." I agree with this to a certain degree.

So I wanted to see what people thought of this film. Personally, I loved the lighting design, color tone, saturations, and his creative use of lanterns, fog and locations. I was however really un-impressed with his camera work. I really like the look that Wally brings to a film, but I must say that his use of handheld just seemed off to me. Also, I felt that his closeups were very awkward, often jarring. I want to see if anybody else felt this...or mabye im just insane.

My colorist is at Matchframe and I love it there. They are great artists and very helpful. If you can, talk to Jerald there, he is the man!

I am a gaffer and would love to talk. Shoot me an e-mail anytime. ericulbrich@gmail.com

interesting lighting by eye huh? I can guarantee you that there was a gaffer in the background with a light meter.

best line by far "great snakes on crack."

yeah....no.

word to the assisted telecine!!

Pritzlaff is right, the Gaffer will help you with equipment, its their job. Chris and I work together all the time, he has a great deal of artistic talent with lighting and my talent is with equipment and picking the right tool for the job (I still have artistic talent too, I just know my equipment) but I help him get the right lights for the right situation. Get the Set Lighting technicians handbook: (here is amazons URL: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/024080495...8809769?ie=UTF8 I think this book has helped me immensley with my choices in lighting needs.

listen, Stanley is probibably the greatest filmmaker to walk the earth. Sheerly from and ateur standpoint the guy did everthing and he did everything well. I actually just finished working on a feature (the last sin eater) with Gavin Alcott, Johns son. We got to talking and eventually the topic came up about how his dad felt about lighting Stanley's movies. I came to the conclusion that just to be labeled as a dp or lighting cameraman on a Kubrick shoot was good enough. Stanley hired DPs who knew what they were getting into, and on top of that they were ok with it. Still it doesnt mean that John had any less work to do, film is a collaborative effort, and sometimes people collaborate better with themselves, but people still need to help them realize or bring their vision to life. Anyway, thats my two cents.

probibally a bad ballast, it sounds like the ground/neutral part of the edison isnt really doing its job to balance the load on the wire. I would send it back to the rental house and get a new ballast.

To present the issue in a different light: EVERY FILM SCHOOL HAS PROBLEMS!! if they didnt it wouldnt match hollywood. There are still politics, there is still the same old BS that we have to deal with on a day to day basis. Guerrmo Del Torro (think thats how its spelled) put the film life in some of the best words I have heard in a long time: "filmmaking is like eating a poop-sandwitch, you sometimes get more bread, you sometimes get less bread, but you always get poop!" So we have a 4k DI system, as a cinematographer, I am going to try my hardest to not shoot for the DI suite, and not end up like lucas, directing around the movie and shooting for the edit. I think often times people sell film students (especially chapman students) short, thinking that we are suddenly going to develop big heads, and forget the creative art of storytelling. I must that that the day this happens to me or any of my friends, I am going to hang my meters up and call it quits. Personally, I am excited to get our new suite, I think its a great tool, but thats just what it is, a tool. Originally, I had made the post to get a general understanding of the DI process in a more complex and detailed manner other than "well there is a machine that scans the film," and apparently this thread has proved nothing at all, other than the fact that people, especially cinematographers, read way far into things. So what we still only shoot 16mm and not 35mm, is doing a DI on a good 16mm film such a waste? And what about the future, as technology improves, the cost and quality of DI goes down and up respectivley. So we may not use DI for another 40 years, we may never use it again, but at least for now we get to use it. People get so caught up with the medium that they forget about the content. forget the medium, just shoot for the story and if you really care about it, it doesnt matter who finances it, and it doesnt matter who teaches you, if you care, it will show.

Hello, Chapman University is just opening its new film school and we just got a DI system. I wanted to know if anybody has used a DI system and what to expect? What to look for and how I should adjust my telecine sessions to accomidate for the best look in DI? Also and tips and or tricks that you have personally learned from going through the DI process.

There really is no reason to meter when shooting for HD. The only time you really have to pull out your meter is for a LUX or Footcandle reading. Other than that, what you see is what you get, light to you video tap and your eye.