[Todd Terry]

Well for me it’s both… I hate seeing them, and I don’t think they sound best either, even when not visible. I much prefer a boomed sound.

Of course hiding lavs well so that you still get good sound but don’t have any clothing sounds (especially on moving talent) it an art itself… one that I have not mastered.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I don’t know if there is a consensus… but I definitely have my own opinion..

Personally, I hate seeing mics with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns. Well, maybe that’s a little extreme, but I still hate them.

Actually, unless I really have to have to (which does sometimes happen), I’ll almost never put a mic on talent. I will boom virtually everything. I usually use the Sennheiser MKH416, but I also have an older Audio-Technica shotgun (couldn’t say the model) that happens to match it pretty exactly…I’ll use that one in the occasional instance that I don’t have phantom power.

I just really don’t like the “lav sound”… even the very highest-end and most expensive lavs just have such a cold clinical sterile sound to them… whereas a good boomed setup like with that Sennheiser has such a warm open sound. It drives me nuts to hear scenes in a movie where the talent walks out of boom range and you can hear them cross-fade to the actors’ radio mics.

I guess the one instance where it really doesn’t both me is on a newscast or similar setup. Although… one of the TV stations in my town, their on-set news talent wears dual mics… which isn’t that unusual except both mics have golf ball sized windscreens on them. I keep wondering, “Exactly how much wind do they have in that studio?” Someone must be propping the stage door open…

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Well I bought mine in an antique store about 20 years ago… but there are usually bunches of them for sale on eBay, both vintage ones as well as reproductions.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

That’s the goal!

By the way, drinking a Grape Nehi will also have that same effect. Try it.

Sadly, I only took the tree down last week. Partly because we were busy… but mostly because it’s a pain in the rear to take apart and pack away and I just kept putting it off.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Dang it… I wish we did more print work.

I would make it my mission to use as many of those as possible this year.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I just went to the kitchen for something and realized we still have a half dozen cans of 35mm in the fridge. Anyone need em?

There’s several short-ends and re-cans… but also what looks to be a factory-fresh roll of 5279, not a re-can. I hated that stock, btw (never liked the grain structure at all), which is probably why it’s still in there. It’s all old, but I’ve shot with film that was as much as 10 years past its “expiration date”… usually as long as it has been kept refrigerated it’s fine.

You never know what you’ll find around here.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

What Mark said.

In addition to needing more space between the talent and the seamless… to me your key positions seem very sharp and oblique. I would move them more toward the camera. I would do no more than a 45° angle on the talent, your positions are much wider than that, almost like side lighting.

I also think you need good back/side/hair/rim lighting. The example pic posted has none, and I think it sorely needs it.

You do list “less strong light as hair light” in a couple of places, but I’m not sure they are the right places or the best amount. Unless you are cross-aiming them, I’m assuming the hair light on the left is for the talent on the left. Note that is the same side as that talent’s key. Usually you would do the backlight either directly in line with the talent/camera, or on the opposite side of the key. Your diagram shows the reverse of that, the backlights are on the same side as the key. That’s going to be very bright, both front and back, on the same side of the talent’s face… with nothing on the other side. That might be good for dramatic effect, but the pic you posted shows pretty flat lighting, so I’m guessing you’re wanting bland not dramatic. This plot is not going to give you that satisfactorily, I think.

Also note that you say “LESS strong light as hair light.” Don’t underestimate how much is needed for backlighting. Of course it varies from scene to scene, but often times the backlight needs to be the strongest instrument in a setup, not the weakest. I always tell people to look at the wide shots on a well-lit network show, say, the standing monologue position on Fallon or Colbert, or presenters at the Academy Awards. Look at the floor, look at their feet. Invariably, their shadows are in front of them, not behind… because the backlight is the strongest instrument in the plot. Sometimes that’s what you need. You might not, but I wouldn’t go in with a very wimpy instrument as a backlight (or sidelight or hairlight or whatever), because it might not be enough. You can always turn an instrument down (dim it with a squeezer, or cut it wire scrims, or just move it back), but you can never get it brighter than 100%. So start with more than you need, to be on the safe side.

And I realize your drawing probably isn’t exact, or to scale… but if it is in the ballpark you might have some of the background coverage issues that Mark mentioned… and actually need a backdrop that is much larger than you might be anticipating. For example, in your drawing if you shoot Talent B from the Cam B position on the slider, the seamless does not extend far enough to cover the background.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

There is, sadly, today virtually no justifyable reason to shoot film… or even consider it.

Please note that I AM a film guy. I’ve shot around a bazillion feet of 35mm, and a few zillion feet of 16mm. I love film. I love shooting film. I love the smell of it when you open a can in the darkroom. I like feeling it in the dark when loading a mag. I like putting my ear to the camera and hearing the whirring sound of the motor. I like the pressure of knowing THIS HAS TO BE RIGHT when lighting a scene, because you never know exactly what it’s going to look like when it gets back from the lab. I like the pressure that it puts on actors to deliver a killer performance because shooting film on a set means “This is the real deal,” and it has to count.

All that being said, I never shoot film anymore, and wouldn’t even consider it in the future.

I sold all of my film cameras a few years ago. The last 35mm body shipped out about, oh, five years ago. Kept the lenses, sold the cameras.

Today’s electronic cameras are just too good, too “instant,” too easy.

If you want to shoot film today…

Just try to buy the filmstock. Oh sure, you can still buy it from Kodak, but the open-cans and short-ends market has gone away (I once bought all the open cans from the second season of The Sopranos for 4 cents a foot… an incredible score for almost 100,000 feet!). Now, I’d have to pay the exorbitant full price.

Just try to find a lab. There are a few still around, but the one I used (and the only one within driving distance to me) is no more.

Just try to find repair. Need a camera worked on? They are mechanical beasts, and need attention. Lens techs are still around, but camera techs are virtually impossible to find.

Again, cameras today are just too good. There’s no point in shooting film. It’s very expensive, very time consuming (which is often even a greater expense), and cumbersome.

BUT… I do wish the next generation would have the opportunity to learn to shoot film (and I doubt most film schools even have real film bodies around any more, except maybe as novelties). Knowing how to do it is, to me, much more important than actually doing it. I’m a much better cinematographer because I know how to shoot film. Take someone who really knows how to DP with actual film, that guy or gal can shoot with an electronic camera in their sleep. The reverse is not true, not by a long shot.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Hi Bob…

Yes, it’s been about a month, things are going okay.

Part of January was a little bit of a struggle, just having to do things I’m not used to (or like to do). Most of that had to do with migrating all of our financial stuff over to the CPA firm, as I mentioned in a previous post. There was a LOT more to that than I might have thought, and seems every day I was spending a fair amount of time getting stuff together for them, tracking down the particulars of various accounts, passwords, making sure they had access to all of the vendors’ accounts we need to pay, and all that voodoo. Thankfully most all of that is done now, and I’m hoping it is smooth sailing for a while. There was just a tremendous amount of stuff that we did in house that we took out of house, and that took a fair bit of work to get all the ducks in a row.

I’m trying to get to the point where I barely have to think about the beancounting side of the company… that everything that needs to happen just does happen without me having to put my hands on it. We’re not quite there yet, but getting there. I’m looking forward to having my brain more free to (mostly) only worry about the creative side of things.

We shall see.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

[Bouke Vahl] ” Iphones have ‘dynamic’ frame rates, that might kill you in post.”

My knowledge is not first hand (I’ve never dealt with iPhone footage), but anecdotally I’ve heard exactly the same thing, that the frame rates resulted in a nightmare editing situations. I’ve heard that several times from several disparate sources.

I think the majority of people who have used iPhones on professional projects (i.e., the movie Tangerine), used apps that give them full control over all of the various image settings, and I would assume that includes locking the frame rate as well (although I don’t know that to be the case). In the case of that film, they used anamorphic adapters on the iPhones. Those adapters are a few hundred bucks… but I’m sure the lenses they used were worth many many MANY times the cost of the iPhones themselves.

I, too, would say give me a real camera any day.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com