Cinematography

My usual choices for main camera are Sony Venice, F65 or F55, Alexa, or Panasonic V35. Various other cameras for specific shots or scenes.

Fair price is a relative term. What whole camera system can give you the images you want for your projects at a price that is doable is probably the better question. Make sure to consider the whole system though, camera, lenses, record and backup media, brand support in your area etc. If you are buying for a specific project, is the camera the best for that project and might it be best on anything else? i.e. An ENG type camera for shooting documentaries, is somewhat compromised as is a full production camera trying to shoot quickly in unstructured situations. The right tools with the fewest compromises that helps you create your images is the sweet spot. Make a list of the things you want, then prioritize it.

Camera choices are based in very personal criteria. The reasons for my choices my not be relevant to someone else. The knowledge and experience to make choices that fit what you wish to achieve is more important than going with what others are using. Trendiness does not supplant actual performance just as technology does not overshadow art.

Lets not forget that lens choice is also very important. Not all cameras can easily take all lenses.

I own one and I love it. However. BMD just release a pocket 6K this morning for only $2500. It has a super35, does desqueezed anamorphic and has an EF mount. Gotta say I am thinking of selling my 4K.

Many low budget folks us phones now with stuff attached, been meaning to look into that. I would guess the Black Magic has better lens/shutter options..

Thanks to everyone for Techie info here. I'm marking thread so I can come back to it later.

As an update. Kept the 4k. Got a metabones .64 cine lock adapter for it. With the latest firmware it is amazing. The colour science and dynamic range makes it a no-brainer for me.

More dynamic range (for an extra $30,000) may be nice. But I just plan shots better and save my cash.

Check your state's and city's film commission, check your city's theaters and university ...

Online posts to local actors groups or online film board listings. Also as a Director/writer as well as cinematographer I find it helpful to take acting classes to get better at what I do and I meet them there.

There are casting websites, used by casting directors, where actors post their profiles, including headshots and resumes and usually clips and/or reels of their work. The most well known in Los Angeles are Casting Networks, Breakdown Services [Actors Access], and Casting Frontier. There are other casting forums as well - do a search for "casting sites." Casting directors post breakdowns of characters for their project, and actors or their agents will submit if they see a match for the actor. Here is a recent blog: https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/best-free-casting-websites/

Why are you asking in the Cinematography lounge?

Thanks Florin, what were your thoughts on this video?

Hayward, I don't know what to say..I didn't think about what were my thoughts about this. I watched the video because I like this film of Stanley Kubrick (I don't know if I am right, but I think that this movie shows a big part of the reality from those moments and places in history..maybe if a person who lived in those times would see the movie, he would say that this is accurate with many things..only some little mistakes..I think that it means something if you can show how it really was and not make a film that leaves the impression that you are watching a movie about modern times with people dressed in historical costumes..only if it's intentionally made like this and you have some artistic purposes). I like to watch and learn from how movies were made, I want to be inspired from great things, because I want to make great things (if I can say - "in my own way", "in my vision"). I started sharing things, because I understood that if you want to make connections you have to tell about yourself (bio, links to social media), share things (people see what you like, maybe they are interested in similar things and would want to work with you in the future). I share also because I think this sharing is a good thing - not being selfish, not keeping things to yourself, show to other people too - maybe they can get a benefit from that; share also things that you are not so interested in..if you think it's good stuff, share it for other people who might be more interested..

Really interesting look at how the film was shot. Thanks for sharing!

A tripod that can move automatically… Starting with a basic pan and tilt, the movements can get more and more complex. Much of the answer depends upon the meaning of “automatically”.

To me the closest to automatic would be a Motion Control camera set up, which will repeat a shot exactly accurate for every frame, in a specific time, again and again, with an exact starting and stopping position. Once set, you press a button to start the motion and the programming of the gear does everything else. Automatically. This would move the camera on a head in 3 axis motion; pan tilt and rotation, as well as control a boom arm up and down, and a chassis on a track forward and back as well as controlling zoom, focus and iris on the lens.

A remote control tripod head can be programmed or work in real time with an operator controlling it. Pan, tilt and rotate, as well as stabilized or not are common. The fewer functions that are controlled the cheaper the unit is. The remote can be a mechanical setup or an electronic one. With electronics, the operator can be far away from the actual camera limited only by any delay in the signal, getting from the camera to the operator and then back again. These heads can be mounted on tripods, dollies, jibs, cranes, etc.

There are cameras that come with remote control heads. PTZ (Pan, Tilt, Zoom) cameras are often used in situations where an operator and camera would be physical intrusive of difficult to place. They are often used in shooting presentations, churches, schools, and similar non-broadcast uses. Recently I’ve looked at both the Sony and Panasonic top of the line cameras as they now have 4K imagers and some reasonable lenses plus image stabilization. At the demonstration of the Sony there was also an automatic tracking feature mainly aimed at following a speaker around a stage in a medium shot. Tell it which object to follow and it just seemed to work decently well. That was as close to “automatic” as anything I’ve seen working in real time. These cameras shot images of high enough quality that I could see adapting them for some specific purposes but of course since seeing these demos I’ve had nothing come up where they could be a consideration.

Perhaps you could tell us a little more about what you wish to do so that suggestions can be more focused (I’ve been told that is a good thing related to cameras) on specific products.

I'm planning on filming a short. One of the shots is a pan shot following a character's path around a bar from behind it. The setting of the scene is dark, with only one light on. Budget's fairly tight (I know, not the best circumstances).

Ahh... You're looking for something that will automatically track an actor even if you can't see them?

There are a few systems I’ve heard of that use tracking beacons hidden on the actor. “Soloshot” is one of them but I know there are more. Some come with proprietary cameras while others can utilize a variety of available cameras. Sounds like some time on the web is in order, maybe search for “automatic camera tracking beacon”. I have never seen any of these systems operating in person so cannot comment on how good they are.

Is your issue that the bar is so dark you feel you will not see the actor to frame properly, or that you are the whole crew and actor and you don’t have anyone to operate the camera?

If there is no one to operate, set the sequence up as a series of cuts from different angles and you will be fine. Or maybe mount the camera on a chest rig on the actor with the camera looking at the actor so they are framing themselves as they run around the bar carrying the camera. There are lots of approaches you can use to create a feel and effect. But that is probably to the issue.

If the problem you foresee is that it will be too dark to frame the actor, that is less serious than you might think though, and in all likelihood will not need any specialized gear. Tight budget is not the issue as most current cameras will get some sort of an image in a normally lit bar. If you wish to keep it looking very dark, there are many artistic approaches than will give you the feel of dark without being so dark you cannot see the character. Easiest is to light the background and not the actor. A few practicals, like beer signs and you are good to go. To make it feel even darker or without any in frame practicals, try lighting the lower 1/3 of the frame only or lighting more of the frame but using a large cookie cut out of cardboard to give you some dabs of light in the background. Add some subtle colour and it looks dark but you can frame as you can see the silhouette of the actor. At night hard light and sharp shadows are your friends.

In general, if you are shooting movement and the subject is obscured for a moment, assume the movement continues unchanged and keep the camera moving at a constant rate. Surprisingly easy to pick up the subject perfectly on the other side.

More along the lines of "I am the whole crew". All great suggestions!

Do whatever you have to do to make your short. The work-around you come up with, a film-making solution, will be a learning experience and a benefit in the long run. The cost of specialized equipment is likely to be more than the cost of your other options, but you will have to do the comparison and see.

Nothing wrong with the auteur approach to a picture, it is a time honored tradition and we’ve all done it or something akin to it. Just another challenge. You can laugh about it when you screen the finished project.

Btw your work looks great! Lets keep in touch!

Hey thanks a lot!

going to AFM?

Sorry I missed you! Will send you my email by DM.

adrianroup@gmail.com

William

Artisan? The new technology dumbing the capture of images down to a very very low common denominator is one of the significant issues behind crap shooting in a lot of cases. Yes this causes troubles for those limited to crafting something.

As a real DP I am an artist, creating and capturing images. While craftsmanship is an essential part of what I do, it is a very very small part indeed. As an educator, I hope this is what you are teaching your students not that they are limited to artisanship.

Andrew, Yes. I teach my students the art of visual storytelling in relation to filmmaking. I was merely addressing the combination of technological advancement and the effect of the current cycle of democratization in our industry. The “middle class gig” isn’t what it was just a few years ago, especially outside of the major markets. Just clarifying. BTW, I noticed you’re new on 32. Welcome! Hope to see you around the boards. Cheers!

The catastrophic “democratization” of the industry is in part a direct result of technological change dumbing down the skills, experience and demonstrated artistry that are a prerequisite for professional levels of production. Not only does this push many toward lowest common denominator of productions, “democratization” has drastically lowered what that lowest denominator currently is. This boom in awful productions actually lowers the statistical possibility of someone suffering under the delusion of “democratized” production helping move into anything resembling the established professional realm of the industry. While there are other factors adding to this tragic “democratization”, technological change is a major component of it. . The result is scads of people pretending to aspirations of moderately viable results while unconsciously heading for the bottom of the barrel. And missing. Thus ending up even lower. This nicely comes back to the subject of this posting, the increasing number of projects with crap cinematography. Bad cinematography being increasingly visible is but one of many results of said “democratization” that so many tout as positive in some myopic fashion.

“Middle class gig”? It is not a term that is in use at all within the limited areas of my experience. As you’ve found me to be new (thank you for the welcome), perhaps you might define it?

@Andrew, Please let me separate these two things. My apologies, the welcome was not meant to infer anything other than I saw your account was only a couple weeks old and I was hoping to be welcoming. My “mid-class gigs” reference was to the work outside of major markets and the lower budgets those have been getting resulting in less pay or in most cases not enough pay for enough qualified people or time to do a good job. I do agree that there is a terrible rash of bad cinematography and that is based on a number of factors. Again, I apologize for any inference to you being new, you have obvious experience in the industry and astute observations.

William, no worries, its all good. To see how long someone has been on S32 look under Profile>About. It tells you when they joined S32 and things like Network and Posts. I’m not quite sure where you saw I was new, but enjoyed the irony of comparing our start dates and S32 presence.

I am not quite sure why you would want a critic to look at this so I will guess that you want some input on what you have posted. As a “feature” is this being framed for projection on a big screen or tv? What was the intended feel and mood of the picture and this scene?

My assumptions are this is one of your “better” scenes, and that the actor in the shot is talking to someone to camera left. I will go with big screen framing intent. The look on her face gives me a feeling of some sort of personal trouble.

First and foremost the shot is approaching a profile. What that does is lessen the emotional impact from the expression, and probably the delivery of the lines, from the actor. A close-up like this is used only sparingly on a big screen feature, more of a TV framing but with TVs getting larger the need for that tight a close-up in order to get the emotion is being lessened. A little more headroom is in order here. All in all an MCU or MS would carry the impact and make for a nicer theatrical frame. The camera angle is slightly high and unless you are trying to look down on her, a straight in camera angle would have helped by not shortening her neck adding to a weight impression. Making your actors look good is one of the basic tenets of cinematography and it keeps actors from wanting to throw things at us.

The choice of angle of the shot for the sun position is not helping you. The angle of the light on her face is less than flattering. Makes her weight more pronounced without adding much of an impression of 3 dimensionality. That sun angle accentuates lines on her face brought out by shadows defining her cheeks and from the corner of her mouth. Not making her look better at all. Over-exposure on her nose and cheek is not helping anything that I can see. The shadows around her eyes and eyebrows and the little shadow above her right eye work really well to give an impression of her being troubled however the lack of light in her eyes along with the camera height gives the impression that the troubles are winning.

The background and setting when shooting for 2.37:1 format have a greater impact than another screen ratios because for a given shot size of an actor more of the background will be revealed. Shooting almost straight into the background low wall and shrubbery gives little opportunity to use it to guide the viewers eyes to where you wish them to go. The limited scope of background takes away from utilizing the environment that she is in to aid in the feel of the scene.. The only thing you have to work with are the shadows and colour. The slightly darker area behind her face nicely separates her from the background, but the colour of her hair and the bushes behind her hair are quite close which isn’t helping the shot.

I’m finding the colour correction overly red and slightly magenta. Not great on skin tone and if the bushes and grass in the background had remained green the shot would have been a lot more pleasing. However judging colour on a still on the internet is pretty questionable. If she is troubled the colour, brightness, and sun angle are all working against you conveying a brooding slightly depressed or sorrowful look.

Hope this is along the lines of what you were looking for.

Andy

@Marc I would like to know more about this character, you captured a look here, where there is definitely more to her than meets the eye. She makes me wonder what the sting/plot twist is going to be. Low budget is never going to be wide screen cine studio technicolour so as long as frames match “mood” AND thread of story, don’t waste too much time over analysing exact mathematical equations.

@Marc Off course I agree with @Andrew for certain specifications but sometimes (depending on the context story) a more raw edgy feel is needed such as hand held camera etc.

Welcome to the community Brad! Glad to have you here! What made you decide to get into cinematography? My colleague Matt Alonzo shoots using a Zhiyun Crane V2 and he loves it too.

Thank you!! I love cinematography. I'm learning so much about it! I wanna master it at some point. My crane is def worth the amount of money I paid for it!

There is no end to the learning. With what we do being an an art form, changing equipment and evolving story telling techniques, the need to keep up on many things is pressing. Learning; to see light, about visual story telling and learning to visualize, would be great starting points.

The broad range of experience among S32 members is a credible resource for info.

I'd also sign up at cinematography.com There's a few regulars there that have reliable knowledge and the site has a ton of useful posts archived.

Colin. interesting learning material. Then again (generally speaking) you could also say watching a feature that is set up this way is made for a 'lazy' audience. And if I remember correct, in most countries they read fom left to right. It is (has gotten) natural for a lot of (do not read Chinese) people to start focussing their eyes on the left; it gives the storyteller - director/camera man/cutter- the freedom of 'leading us' from on place/image to an other...

Totally correct, but what Wes Anderson does is lead the viewer's focus with track and dolly, job or panning from one side of the screen, or top or bottom, to then stop with the main subject dead center. It's always been his signature style and is always fun to see what he comes up with next.

Ok, I get it! It is "part" of his shot(s)! :)