Not only steadicam...

[Michele Coser]

Well, i was writing a long post, but maybe it wasn't too much interesting...  anyway, is strange how things are changing and evolving. I remember, two years ago, thinking about myeself "i want to be a steadycam operator; nothing else".  And now i fiind myself thinking more toward cinematography.   I done many thing, including four shorts (i think i already talked about) where i'm credited as a director of photography; and i think is not really right; since at the time i was just the camera operator, only with an eye tryng to make a better shot.
But, months have passed; and in the meantime i brought books on lighting, cinematography, a subscription on the ASC magazine...    now my knowledge, still very far from being something decent, is way more than before.  Right now i'm making three shorts; and i find myself constantly thinking how to shot or light a particular scene, how to make a prop, what light to buy... professional ones or less, less expensive Home-depot ones... the costumes works? This location work?  We need a crane, a wide angle...
Yes, i feel that i forgot a bit about the steadicam.  On one of the last scene i shot with the rig, i was'nt happy. Sure my fault was that i did'nt pratice lately (another reason is that we were recording sound with a cable that messed up my balance at every step... i advised them); but i was so full of things to do... that steadicam has became only one part of my "cinema job".  Wich is still my 2nd job (i'm a building surveyor) since it don't pay too much...
On the steadicam side, the most important thing is find a solution for the batteries; i'm near the solution but it still need work. I feel i need to change the arm with a better one and maybe the vest also...  there are so much thing to buy that i don't know what is the first...  maybe a decent light kit...
So, here is a topic on dvinfo.net on one of my short. you can see some grabs.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=115185

and here is my myspace page,  the blog, where i talk about what i do; is in italian (but there are pictures and videos)

http://www.myspace.com/196828025

In the end... i think that cinematographer is still a definition too big for me... but i really like it....

(wikipedia says that cinematographer now applies when the camera operator and the director of photography are the same person; plus it sounds less pretentious than director of photograpy.  Too bad that cinematografo, the italian translation of cinematographer, still refers to the peson that project the films in theaters)

[Alan Dague-Greene]

I can sympathize. I've worked on a few projects where, because I was the sole camera person and took care of the lighting, I'm being credited as DP. I don't know what that is, but it's not me. Just because I'm the most qualified person in the room for a particular role, doesn't mean I'm up to that title. I often suggest simply "camera" as my title, even if it involved slightly more than that.

[Charles Papert]

Well, I for one appreciate that you guys are hesitant with these titles as it shows that you have respect for the jobs in question. I was the same way in the earlier days of my career. I used the British term "lighting cameraman" for a while as I was uncomfortable calling myself a DP until I was more established.

I see that the Wikipedia definition does mention that only a few insist that the title of cinematographer be applied if one is both lighting and operating. I've never heard that. It is always synonymous with the DP position and independent of whether you have an operator or not.

For many years I have hard to do Steadicam on my DP jobs and while it is sometimes an economic or convenience to the production, I feel that the two jobs conflict with each other. When I am in Steadicam mode, my attention during the shot is largely focused onto a relatively small monochrome monitor, mentally reducing objects to their simplest form (outlines and shapes). It's nearly impossible to judge the lighting in this circumstance, and if you do, you are removing your attention from the mechanics of the frame and the machine. On an intensive lighting setup, I will be throwing the rig on at the last second without having spent any time thinking about the nuances of operating. Inevitably, either the lighting or the operating suffers to varying degree.

I once had to shoot an over-the-shoulder of a very tall actor to the star of a TV series, and from my vantage point I could not see past the tall actor's body. Thus I couldn't judge the lighting values on the main actor's face during the shot. I had to ask the gaffer to watch out for certain things for me. It was a low point.

The flip side of the coin is getting someone to operate for you when you are working as a DP. Depending on where you live this may be easy or difficult. I've had a number of newer operators come in to work for me on lower budget projects that I've shot (all are a bit terrified at first that I will be brutal on them! demanding yes--brutal, I hope not). Certainly it can be challenging for me to verbalize what I normally do without having to communicate but that is part of the job of the cinematographer, to be able to communicate to the three departments that he commands. Overall I really like having an operator, especially for digital acquisition as it means I can work more from the monitor.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear you guys are immersing yourselves in the wonderful art of cinematography and wish you the best of luck with it. Lighting is a lifetime skill, you never stop learning and there are so many choices to be made that it never becomes boring.

[Charles King]

Thanks for the insights guys, especially from you CP. Something worth digesting.

[Michele Coser]

Well, i feel like i'm in a limbo.  I'm not just "the operator" but at the same time i'm not a real director of photography. I think i'm something in beetween.

Even more, i just finished a short. A muslim girl written a story about another girl that decide to not wear anymore his traditional veil, but there is a love twist in beetween...
I joined the project since they were local youngs (i don't even count the fuel cost and the km) and since i was seeing the chance for me to do something in complete freedom (from the visual side). The problem was that the script was only dialogs.  No actions, hints of what to shot.... nothing.   I as the closest thing to the director, also...
In the end, it was a little tour-de-force; since i can shot only 2 hours per day, only 2 days per week. Forget the complete freedom you have in mind, forget the lights, reflectors, steadycam, dollies, forget even the tripod.  Forget the the 3rd or 4th take....  they feel that two where enough...

i got too much handheld, but on 80% of the time was the only solution; i only used the dolly one time in a -relative- calm situation when only two actors where involved; the last day of shooting (two days ago) i shot a scene where ther was no room even for the tripod.

But at least the image is clean, almost zero noise, some locations where uber-ugly, some backgrounds boring and bad looking, while some other shots where good enough, so that i was almos happy (about being hypo-critical about yourself....)

Sure i made some mistakes, i forgot some shots, i broken the 180° rule a couple of time maybe, but it was almost everything improvised. Some scenes can be more brighter, but what is important is lighted... who cares if the background is dark... does it matter?  I mean, if there was someting in the background that need to be seen, i'd light it... (think with speed and zero budget in mind)

I did the editing also... another painful thing... i don't like editing, i'm never happy with the final results, and i think is a pretty boring thing (many others think the contrary); but i think no-one can get better result from that footage, is nearly a miracle that i got a decent dialogue.
And when i showed the final edit to the guys, the girl that wrote the story (also the main "actress") nearly cried. I think that they did'nt expected a similar result.    This was the most satisfying thing.

[Charles King]

So how are things going with you? Any turns of events?

[Michele Coser]

Well... as for this short "Everything is possibile" ... many said that it was good and liked it; the downside is obviously the acting;   unfortunatly there was not too much people at the festival when they showed up...  anyway, Charles you have a pm about that.

I finished a second short with the same guys... this came out really short 'cause is less than 3 minutes...  nothing really special, but that is (i hope) the last one of this kind of things.

The next saturday and sunday i have planned to (finally) shot my short... is for the dvxuser TimeFest; is a sorta of Bourne Ultimatium style of race through the city but on foot and with no violence or car crashes.... we are tight 'cause we have two italian festival deadlines on the 30 of may (the dvxuser fest deadline is 15 june)... i hope it goes well...

Another short i'm making is something with a sleepy hollow style... and here, other than the camera operator, i'm also the "production designer" and prop maker as we need it...

The fiction/soap opera i was talking about in the other thread is  still  into unknown stage... we are waiting info from the producer/director.

As the last thing, the 6-7-8 of june i am in Cattolica (italy) to shot another short, this time we have an acting class of various ages at our disposal... i'm working on the story with the director, it will be probably one of those multiple crossing stories (guy ritchie style)

[Charles King]

Actors are many...good actors are few... PM sent.

[Michele Coser]

A small update: shooting for the Dvxuser TimeFest has ended, and i'm editing the short. Here is the thread on dvxuser.com

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=136174

[Charles King]

Thanks..will check it out.

[Michele Coser]

Here is, finally.  5.00 , the short i made for the Dvxuser TimeFest  is here; the language is italian, but the subtitles are in english - not perfect...

http://www.dvxfest.com/timefest/direct_dl.php?id=1000165

Tell me what you think. Even if it sucks.

[Olie Walker]

i like it!!!
the bit where u first start following the man running in the streets is wobbly but works, keeps the shot nicely! was that handheld??
what parts used a steadycam?
Oli

[Charles King]

1. You can see the guy deliberately drop his keys...

2. Were you running behind the guy on the bike? There was a part were you looked you were trying to decide whether to follow him or not.

3. 1.58 minutes into the chase, he meets a guy who pretends to not know what way/side to take...shaking like he had spasms...

4. 2.30 minutes into the clip, the guy on the telephone pretends he did not see the guy on the bike, when the camera slightly sway to show the guy o the bike waiting on the side of the road just before the guy decides to cross the streets.

5. 2.49 into the clip the guy drops the bike( like he's following the script to the letter...it should be spontaneous, it did not look real) Why would he just throw the bike in the middle of the road? It looks too choreographed.

6. A guy suddenly stealing an old bike...(Does that happen a lot in Italy?)

7. 3.01 minutes into the clip, you're chasing the guy. Lots of shakes...It looks like the arm wasn't set right. Too much outside force. Although I like the sporactic look it gave, something like 'Bourne Identity'.

8. 3.31 into the clip, youre, supposely waiting for the guy to come round the corner of the building. Your shot was all over the place. You should have gotten the whole body shot of him coming around the corner instead. A lock down of the camera would have been preferable. Maybe even a Tripod for that scene.

9. Close up of face, 3.58 minutes into the clip was nice shot. I like it.

10. Were you doing the Don Jaun 4.13 minutes into the clip, climbing the stairs? It looks like another support equipment an actor would be using.

Otherwise not a bad short clip to show a usage of a stabilizer system in it's enviroment. Now I forgot, did you use a HB rig or a commercial rig?

[Michele Coser]

Oh, Charles... thanx for the comment... i did'nt use a steadycam at all!    Everything that is shacking is handheld.
I thought it was clear...     however a friend was pushing me on a wheelchair for the first bike sequences; but the cobblestone on the streets did'nt helped too much.

The main idea was that, like when you have a date or some important appointment, almost every thing that can slow you down will happen.  So we put many of this "unforseen events", and even more where in the script but i left out the ones i felt unnecessary.

Yet, some of the things where a bit "forced" like the key, the bike/theft and the street/car guy (he's the same actor).  But overral, it was intended as some sort of satyrical story.

The running scenes are shot running handheld with a shutter speed of 1/500, and yes, the resemblance to Bourne Identity was on purpose.

The final stair shot where made by me, since when rewieving some sequences we deleted a cuple of shots, i dressed myself like the actor and shot those small details (the arrive, the hand on the door). for the legs i was running (handheld) on the stairs pointing the camera toward my legs.

[Charles King]

Oh, Charles... thanx for the comment... i did'nt use a steadycam at all! Everything that is shacking is handheld.
I thought it was clear... however a friend was pushing me on a wheelchair for the first bike sequences; but the cobblestone on the streets did'nt helped too much.

The main idea was that, like when you have a date or some important appointment, almost every thing that can slow you down will happen. So we put many of this "unforseen events", and even more where in the script but i left out the ones i felt unnecessary.

Yet, some of the things where a bit "forced" like the key, the bike/theft and the street/car guy (he's the same actor). But overral, it was intended as some sort of satyrical story.

The running scenes are shot running handheld with a shutter speed of 1/500, and yes, the resemblance to Bourne Identity was on purpose.

The final stair shot where made by me, since when rewieving some sequences we deleted a cuple of shots, i dressed myself like the actor and shot those small details (the arrive, the hand on the door). for the legs i was running (handheld) on the stairs pointing the camera toward my legs.

Thank you for the explaination. Now knowing how it was shot I think it was a great concept, now understanding what your intention was. Again, the small points about the dropping of the keys and such are actor based opinion so it had nothing to do with your shooting. If you look at those shots again you will see what I mean. The dropping of the keys were intentional. It did not look like he dropped it by mistake. Also the guy he tried avoided while riding the bike, look like it was completely staged. The whole point of acting...is not acting And the bike scene where he just threw down the bike was also staged, although it was not suppose to look that way. I know they were not top actors but small things like these can bring even a small budget film to it's knees....

Also, you should go easy on your handheld shots...if they are too shaky, then it should be done on a tripod...