greets from berlin

First of all, I would like to really thank you for your truly selfless sharing and the fact that you reply individually to each comment…amazing! Thank you very much!

The Last 3 Minutes is totally awesome….it has blown away everything I have seen from the DSLRs but it also proves that cinematography (light) comes first as I personally feel that many DSLR shooters leave out the lights thinking they can get away with the higher ISOs. They just forget that light improves the aesthetic quality of the film and provides modelling.

That said, I was wondering (when I saw holes being dug and explosives going off) the real purpose of shooting films like this (which I am sure was detrimental to the env in at least a very small way). The planet is in pretty bad shape as it is and we filmmakers (majority of us) are really just adding to the mess by building sets, throwing them away, setting of pyros and adding to every piece of crap in the air, etc. Yes, I respect the passion of every filmmaker, amateur or professional and I love watching all the end products but it is just starting to get to me everytime I throw the generator up for the big HMIs and for what? Fictional films about love, etc.

No mistake, I do films myself but I sometimes take a step back and shake my head at the guy driving a Porsche (ever wondered how much gas that piece of metal drinks up?) and then I look at what I am doing and I feel like Im in a Ferrari…I would love to hear how u think about all this and of course, filmmaking out of passion will never stop but I guess there can be at time when filmmakers out there can start taking a step towards going a bit more green?

Im sure I will be taking flak badly for this but I believe that every step we take to reduce our impact on the env, is going to help somehow.

This is not a personal attack on you but rather, I would love to hear your professional and unbiased opinion on this.

Thank you very much once again for being the selfless person that you are. You are an inspiration to more people than you can imagine. :)

Thanks for answering my questions. I have two more about T:S if you don’t mind answering.

1. How many takes did you get with each shot, or were there any problem shots that you had to go after a few more times than expected?

2. Did you get the shots off chronologically?

Thanks again!

Excellent post. Your blog is at the top of my list of sites I check daily. Very informative, insightful, and interesting. I cannot thank you enough.

In Terminator: Salvation, how precise were your measurements when preparing a new camera setup? Does your frame have to be spot on to match with your previous shot that you’re transition from in the faux-long shot, or do you have some room for error?

How exactly did camera operator Chris Mosley rotate the upside handheld shot inside the helicopter crash? Did you use any other tricks; e.g. place a wide angle lens, stabilize and push in the image in post to eliminate the shakiness?

You said in your video that your crew used a regular lawn mower to produce some of the smoke in the Vietnam sequence. Could you elaborate a little on this; is this a regular lawn mower that your team modified to produce more smoke? Do you use regular mower fuel?

In the video it appears during the takes that the lawn mower is still creating smoke while behind the actors, but the smoke moves away from them. Why leave the mower running?

Every time I read your blog I’m inspired. Your knowledge and love for this art seeps through your written words. Thank you and don’t stop writing.

p.s. In my opinion, the only reason to watch Terminator: Salvation is for the cinematography.

Great post, thanks for all the in-depth info. One thing I can’t figure out: How do you match the “hook-ups” perfectly between each set-up so that the final image is totally seamless? It seems that no matter how precise and careful you are there’s bound to be some minor deviations once the shot is all stitched together. Is this something that is done in post? If so, then how do you know when you are, shall we say “close enough,” to move on?

Thanks

One thing I was curious about was the way you are using different picture profiles for setting exposure and then for acquisition, sounds pretty smart. I get the neutral settings, but I was wondering if you could go into more detail about the RAW setting you use (if it’s your secret sauce, no worries mate!).

BTW, unbelievably cool that you used lights from Grainger and other MacGyver solutions that we low budget indie guys have to find and use.

Thanks for all your giving to us Shane. Inspiring stuff!!