text:
Home > Country Reports
제거하면 노출 안됨 $('div.entry-content p#t_img').css('display', 'none'); });
February 07,2019 Country Reports
Country Report: Russia (January 2019)
post navi
Prev Next	List
Sino-Russian relations remain the bedrock of Moscow's Asia policy, as reaffirmed by when the Russian ambassador to China recounted at the start of 2019 how relations had been growing closer. The perceived sharp downturn in Sino-US relations only adds to the Sino-Russian momentum. One prospect is to take advantage in 2019 of the 70th anniversary of the normalization in 1949 or of the 20th anniversary of the bilateral treaty of 2001 to produce a new document bringing ties closer to an alliance. Indeed, a review of evolving military planning in China indicates that it is ready to begin active use of its armed forces, raising new possibilities for Russia. Yet, an assessment of Chinese debates on foreign policy reveals some retrenchment back toward Deng's modesty, which could benefit Russia by making China less confident and more eager to cooperate with Russia and forge a regional environment that opens space for a multidirectional Russian foreign policy in Asia. Also visible is alarm that the US retreat from Afghanistan and China's intensifying BRI with Pakistan and in Central Asia will leave Russia and India the big losers in Central Asia. Such outright warnings about China are now in evidence. More common is renewed attention to the revived strategic triangle, as the US withdraws from the intermediate-range missile treaty with Russia, citing a Chinese missile build-up as a factor.
Although Putin has yet to meet Kim Jong-un to the chagrin of some, the talks over North Korea have evolved in a manner promising for Russia, leading to a lively discussion. Trump's moves, progress in North-South relations, gains by the North, and contradictions among the parties all bode well for Russian diplomacy, as a parallel is drawn with the Cuban missile crisis for altering the security negotiating environment. While there is talk that Pyongyang could be Moscow's closest ally in East Asia, leading to the desired multilateral order, some suggest that Moscow build ties with Seoul as a way to become more influential in both Korean capitals to shape wide-ranging diplomacy. This thinking is in line with assumptions that a compromise will be reached once the United States awakens to the need, allowing the North to keep nuclear weapons in what is called "conditional, reciprocal, incremental denuclearization." Washington will concentrate on the threat to itself, making a compromise possible. Moscow lacks serious leverage on Pyongyang, but it is seen as supporting a compromise and dialogue. The case is made that Moscow does not benefit from conflict there and would be a major beneficiary of such a compromise.
Other Russian coverage reflected on the prospects of a breakthrough in Russo-Japanese relations and on the situation in South Asia. The former treatment centered on security, giving the situation on the Korean Peninsula and China's challenge to Japan as the reasons for a soft line on sanctions to Russia. To these, one adds, Washington's failures to Tokyo, driving it to Moscow, and the impression that Russia's tilt toward Pyongyang has paid dividends even as Tokyo considers Russia a status quo power in East Asia. Yet, integration of missile defenses with the United States could drag Japan into a regional conflict or arms race and poses the most serious barrier to ties with Russia. The conclusion is that Abe is both under the positive influence of his father, who to his dying days sought better ties with Moscow, and his grandfather, who put the Japan-US security treaty into effect—two bookends to postwar Japan's policies who matter.
On South Asia, one article focuses on closer Sino-Indian relations. Although some factors will continue to divide these states for perhaps 5-10 years, it calls on Russia to treat India as a reliable partner on a par with China and the United States. The April 2018 Wuhan summit achieved far more than expected and proved that Indo-US ties are far from the tacit alliance some have claimed. The author sees Trump angering Delhi with his blackmail and giving it no choice but to draw closer to Beijing, which would have occurred anyways for economic and security reasons. The best hope for India, readers are told, is to work out a demarcation of spheres of influence with China that guarantees China's economic interests in return for India's economic and security ones, as India preserves its valued strategic autonomy. Having shifted toward the United States, it is now shifting toward China, giving Russia more room to maneuver in consultation with China.
On January 9, interfax.ru posted an interview with Andrei Denisov, ambassador to China, on the state of bilateral relations in 2018. He praised its growing, de-ideologized role as a stabilizing factor in a turbulent world and the results of four full-format summits from June to November. After Xi attended the Eastern Economic Forum in September, Putin will join the BRI forum in April followed by Xi's appearance at the Petersburg forum in June. Other impending meetings will be at the SCO summit in Kirghizia, the G20 in Japan, and the BRICS and APEC summits in Brazil and Chile. 2019 will also mark the 70th anniversary of the 1949 establishment of relations. Trade has climbed to about $110 billion, up more than a quarter in one year and leaving Russia with a positive balance of $10 billion. High oil prices were a factor, as energy comprised 70 percent of Russian exports, as was the operation of a second pipeline from Skovorodino. The Yamal LNG plant—project of the 21st and 22nd century—is complete with tankers plying the Arctic route to China. By the end of 2019 the eastern gas pipeline will boost trade a lot. Given the Sino-US trade war, Russian exports of soybeans have almost doubled, as agricultural trade climbed to $3.5 billion with milk products and frozen chicken to soon be added. Cumulative Chinese investments now exceed $30 billion, 70 key, joint projects have been affirmed for $120 billion, 15 of which are already being realized. The goal is $200 billion in trade. After long delay a bridge was completed between Heilongjiang and the Jewish Autonomous Republic with train travel to come in 2019, Denisov hopes, in addition to the 23 percent rise in containers between China and Europe via Russia. The Heihe-Blagoveshchensk auto bridge is due for completion in 2019. Yet, Denisov acknowledges complications in transport infrastructure, crossing points, and trade and investment procedures, which still need time to resolve. He warns of Pyongyang losing interest in talks if sanctions are kept as before, praising close Sino-Russian cooperation on this, as Morgulov meets with his Chinese counterpart almost bi-monthly, while noting the first three-way talks with a North Korean official that occurred in 2018.
Aleksandr Gabuev in Kommersant on January 11 predicted a long economic war between China and the United States. Despite upbeat accounts from both sides after the just-completed talks, Gabuev sees little chance of a deal in 90 days from the Trump-Xi summit, where the timetable was set. Trump's optimism was no more than a show to boost the markets, while Xi is willing to lower trade deficits but not change China's plans to boost national champions unacceptable to US businesses and bureaucrats. The United States has lots of instruments to pressure China, not only tariffs, but actions such as the arrest of Huawei official and planned coordination with allies. Even if a deal is reached in March, Gabuev concludes, there will be no end to the trade war.
Iurii Tavrovskii in Zavtra on December 27 argued that Sino-Russian relations are nearing the level of an alliance in response to US ultimatums to both, which must be answered with ultimatums, preferably jointly. Tavrovskii reviews agreements between Putin and Xi boosting ties, adding that the time has come to defend the interests they set forth with a warning of an alliance. In 2019 Moscow and Beijing will celebrate 70 years of diplomatic relations; in 2021 their current treaty expires—a new document is needed.
Vasilii Kashin on November 22 in Rossiya v Global'noi Politike assessed China's military strategy, explaining that the long period when China has not been at war may be ending.
Reviewing white papers and other documents with military strategy, he finds a transition from 2014 from Deng's passive foreign policy to the "diplomacy of a great power with Chinese characteristics" to forge a new type of international relations as an alternative to the "liberal world order." As China's dependence on exports fell in a decade to 2017 almost in half to 18.5 percent of GDP, Kashin views it as still dependent on a new wave of foreign investment to achieve its desired technological leap and under growing demand to defend its interests around the world. Its military budget in real terms rose more than five times from 1997 to 2015, well surpassing the growth in its economy. He reviews Chinese military planning, noting major shifts in support of contemporary technology in 1991, 1999, 2003, and later, he concludes that China is now the third military power, in many respects the second. Its missile forces rather than Russia's alleged violations have led the United States to leave the 1987 INF treaty. Its nuclear forces pose a problem for US use of ICBMs, which would fly over Russia and could trigger Russian fear of being attacked. Having achieved a technological leap, China faces reorganizational needs, which it has been addressing effectively of late, making the armed forces an important instrument of foreign policy. In conclusion Kashin predicts that the long period of three decades since Chinese troops participated in a military conflict will soon come to an end.
In Polis, No. 1. Aleksandr Lukin discussed a sharp discussion under way in China on Chinese foreign policy, contrasting the activist and realist (sticking to Deng's legacy) schools and putting the leadership in between the two. Taking place since the start of the century, the discussion has intensified with the trade war with Washington, which exposed China's weakness and dependence on the US economy. Some have criticized BRI as provocative. The article analyzes the nature of these exchanges, much of it unpublished. Noting that under X Jinping Chinese society had appeared monolithic, Lukin finds that Trump's trade war fundamentally changed the situation, casting doubt on aspects of Xi's course and on the ability to predict the world situation, albeit often only indirectly identifiable. Critics noted the inability to anticipate Trump's new, harsh course, asked if Chinese propaganda about its rise as the world leader had not provoked the US response, and cast doubt on departures from Deng's principles of modesty and not exacerbating foreign relations. Yet Lukin is careful to add that this is criticism of tactics and timing, not of the leadership's strategy to make China one of the leading powers. Among those blamed are Hu Angang, ideologist of Chinese triumphalism and champion of breaking the monopoly of Western culture in the world now that China has overtaken the United States in comprehensive national power. Some warned that China had come out from under the shadows too soon, that journalists close to the military and security agencies had been pushing over the Internet since the second half of the 2000s to act triumphally, that hawks are attacking the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as too dovish and the Party is losing control over the military, and that the public has been aroused to demand tougher policies toward the United States, Japan, etc. Lukin cites numerous examples, adding that the hawks had begun to influence foreign policy and that "core interests" were being broadly interpreted. Pressure was exerted through arrests on foreign companies, sanctions were imposed, and territorial disputes were harshly treated. A rhetorical battle proceeded between peace-loving or power, cooperation for mutual benefit or China' unique role in the world, and market adherence or a Chinese model of development. The impression has spread that many are dissatisfied with political authorities, including traditionally pro-west intellectuals and businessmen tied to western economic interests.
Lukin reviews criticisms of BRI from China's partners, observing that one factor is the struggle over international markets not only with western conglomerates carrying on an anti-Chinese media campaign but also with Indian interests protective of traditional spheres of influence. At the core, problems stem from a geopolitical battle with the United States and the geopolitical and foreign economic policies of China. The former has been exacerbated by Trump, whose moves defy all of China's assumptions and are grounded in an ideology shared by the entire US elite, reacting to weakness before it is seen as too late. At fault is failure to grasp the real intentions of the United States and its determination out of excessive belief in the irreversibility of China's rise, but China is in no way at fault for its rise and for US moves to force a fundamental transformation in its course while calling it a greater threat than Russia. China's economic success without need for the western political system undercuts western modernization theory.
For geopolitical reasons the confrontation between Beijing and Washington is inevitable even if Xi Jinping had not advanced his ambitious programs. This confrontation has laid bare the problem of having no allies amid tense relations with many due to moves attributable to its hawks, as in policies toward Japan, India, many Southeast Asian states, Mongolia, and South Korea and in use of overseas Chinese as if they are pawns of Beijing. Lately, due to the crisis in US relations, Beijing has undertaken some correctives toward Japan, India, South Korea, and others. US pressure against China's purchase of the S-400 missile defense system led China to declare the necessity of raising strategic ties to Russia to a new level rather than banks more strictly abiding by US sanctions. Lukin concludes that Deng-like modesty plays a positive role and brings more control over state enterprises abroad by favoring an image of mutual benefit. He blames pseudo-research centers in search of state financing for squeezing out honest analysis. For Russia the stakes are high, needing China to forge an alternative model in order to forge a real multipolar world, but also preferring a less "self-confident" China to set aside notions of Russian "territorial debts" and of getting by without need for any friends and partners.
In Nezavisimaya Gazeta Aleksandr Khramchikhin depicted China on the offensive, squeezing Russia and India from their zones of influence. Western China's geopolitical role has greatly increased. As early as the 1970s, China engaged in a policy of encirclement of India, adding Bangladesh to its close military ties in addition to Pakistan. Sri Lanka was soon targeted too. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, China turned to economic reforms that allowed it to expand economically into Central Asia and demographically, readers are told. China had border disputes that it, on the whole, resolved to its advantage while later using the SCO as an instrument of economic expansion. In the mid-90s when the Eastern Turkestan Islamic movement pushed for independence in Xinjiang, China made use of this to pressure any opposition at home and to intervene abroad on the pretext of fighting terrorism. At the same time, it had excellent relations with all countries organizing and sponsoring Sunni Islamic radicalism, which led it until recently to remain neutral regarding the civil war in Syria. China did not suffer from terrorism since it befriended the sponsors of terrorism, although in Xinjiang the threat may revive. Without any real threat at home, China has a pretext for action in its west.
The article identifies BRI as both a political and an ideological project. The key ally is Pakistan, to which arms are going in large quantities and through which important transportation corridors pass. The Gwadar port serves as a gateway for goods from the Middle East and Africa to China and back by land and sea. Soon Gwadar will be designated an official Chinese military base. Now that Pakistan has unpayable debts, China will not forgive any but just keep pressing more. It is proceeding similarly with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. A parallel situation is unfolding in Central Asia, as debts accumulate, which must be repaid even in territory. For the gas pipeline funded by China, Turkmenistan pays in gas, meaning it receives next to nothing from its revenue, leaving it in a serious economic crisis. The alliance with China has left it in ruins, it is said. In Tajikistan, some Chinese companies have paid for an electric station and highway in return for the rights to work gold deposits—a very favorable deal for China compared to a normal commercial contract and opening a road there as in Turkmenistan. Tajikistan is left heavily in debt to China, reportedly resulting in paying with territory. Kirghizstan's extraordinary debts to China have made Kirghiz dependency a big internal political factor. The situation is less dramatic in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, but China's expansion is proceeding very quickly there, too.
In each case China has started to send arms. Naturally, China's economic influence is turning into military-political influence, as in an agreement it initiated with Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan for a joint struggle. This could lead to the formation of a military bloc under China, readers are told, observing that the United States could not get Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together, but China is more successful as it proceeds to "buy" Kabul. If Washington has blessed this coalition, Russia has not, which on an unofficial level fears a loss of its influence in Central Asia as China proceeds to take advantage of Russia's problems to replace it in various areas. BRI goes around Russia and establishes rival transportation bypassing it. The article concludes by emphasizing that Russia and India are the losers, not the United States, warning that Central, South, and Southeast Asia could all fall under China's total control. Such alarmist articles about China have not been common in mainstream publications of late, which insist that BRI and EEU can be joined, that China is still deferring to Russia in Central Asia, or that the United States is a player that will stand firmly against China.
Sergei Trush in Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn' asked if we are back to the Russia-US-China triangle, noting that in recent months this focus has clearly been revived. Pointing to the end of the 60s to the beginning of the 90s as the heyday of this approach, he stressed a US guarantee to China in the event of a Soviet nuclear attack and a boost to the US position in talks with the USSR. In the 1990s geopolitical risks were reduced, as economic interdependence superseded concern over security. Now that risks are in the forefront for all three and China and Russia draw closer on security, the triangle has revived, albeit without an ideological or values component and, instead, with more equal distribution of military power, newfound economic weakness in Moscow, and the rise of regional centers of power. Indicative of triangularity is the pullout by Trump from the INF treaty with talk of drawing China into the negotiating process. Supposedly, in an effort to maintain the treaty, Moscow will urge Beijing to join in three-way talks, but this is not realistic, given its impact in subverting Moscow's close ties to Beijing into rivals, at a time of crisis in Russo-US ties. Also, China counts on mid-range rockets to contain the US across the western Pacific. While they pose a threat to Russia, which is more exposed than is the US mainland, in the future it may agree to talks with China or triangular ones on them, and China too may agree, aware of how the United States could build up its forces. As a new triangular balance is taking shape, Russia should avoid emotionalism in weighing risks and threats that lie ahead.
Sergei Karaganov wrote in Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn' about the battle for peace after the United States quit the INF treaty. The situation has grown more dangerous due to the decline in the governing classes in the West and the unprecedented, rapid redistribution of forces in the world since 2000 with destabilizing impact, accompanied by an ideological vacuum filled by nationalism. The arms control process has been dealt a death blow by the United States, which now aims to draw Russia and China into an arms race while demonizing them in a manner reminiscent of psychological preparation for war. Russia including its cooperation with China is a force for stability, but it has not advanced an appealing conception of world order beyond multipolarity. The idea of Greater Eurasia, supported by China, has not been made concrete after advancing more than a little the first 2-3 years. Even the "turn to the East" is dragging as if it matters only for the Russian Far East and is just economic in focus. Calls for a regional system of security in Northeast Asia likewise seem to be forgotten, although only Russia is relatively well-received by all of the countries. Karaganov sees the prospect for arms control and war avoidance in three-way talks on strategic stability with China and the United States.
The Korean Peninsula
On November 22 Konstantin Khudolei in Rosssiya v Global'noi Politike wrote that the situation on the Korean Peninsula has promise with multiple variants possible and room for Russia to take a new approach. Asking if there has been a qualitative breakthrough on the peninsula owing to diplomacy, as occurred in 1962 due to the Cuban missile crisis, when limits were set on confrontation that threatened to erupt in nuclear war, he finds hope in what has transpired as recently as in September with the Moon-Kim Pyongyang summit. He also sees gains for North Korea, relying on its military prowess and on contradictions among the other countries. Third, Khudolei detects serious change in the structure of the negotiating process in Northeast Asia, raising the role of bilateral and trilateral contacts, although a six-sided format is optimal from Russia's viewpoint. In the current process, Washington will consult with its two allies and Pyongyang with Beijing and Moscow. The process is not irreversible, he adds, the systems in North and South Korea are sharply at odds, if not so antagonistic. Contradictions between Washington and Beijing over the Korean Peninsula are serious, and the North's missiles and nuclear program will continue to rattle the entire region and especially the United States. Thus, no breakthrough has been achieved, Khudolei concludes.
Talks between Pyongyang and Washington are unpredictable, readers are told. One possible scenario is total denuclearization, but Pyongyang will refuse, clinging to its nuclear status, and other barriers exist. A second variant is for Pyongyang to develop its weapons secretly while publicly proclaiming disarmament, but it will be soon discovered, leading to new, severe, US sanctions and possible proliferation in Northeast Asia, at a cost to Russia's power. But given China's anger as well as US opposition, this is very doubtful. One more variant is partial denuclearization and gradual warming of ties with the United States, as occurred with India after its nuclear test, accompanying a path of authoritarianism with gradual market opening backed by the United States versus China. The North would forego strategic weapons capable of hitting the United States. This would be a tough sell in both countries. The most likely variant is much talk but little action from Pyongyang, maneuvering between Washington and Beijing and playing on Seoul, as Trump, Kim, and Moon all claim success, and Beijing is satisfied with the status quo. Sanctions would be reduced for some projects. Yet, if US-DPRK talks stumble, the situation will worsen.
Russia is left on the sidelines after in recent years tilting to North Korea in politics and security. Politicians prefer authoritarian to liberal capitalism, replacing criticism of North Korea's order with neutrality or sympathy. There is talk that Pyongyang can become Moscow's closest ally in East Asia, contributing to a multilateral order and Moscow serving as an intermediary. Khudolei calls on Russia to show concern for South Korean security too, since, after all, North Korea threatens it and was the aggressor in 1950. Seoul is sensitive to inequality with Tokyo and could be amenable to Russia's position on US missile defense in South Korea. The 1992 Russo-ROK treaty might be replaced with more on security. Given the slow pace of bilateral ties with North Korea and the lack of interest of Russian business in it, a multilateral approach is desirable as well as further impact on North Korean workers in the Russian Far East, opening up the society. To raise its authority and its influence in the two Korean capitals, trailing that of China and the United States, Russia should somewhat change its approach and become more energetic: joint initiatives with China are taken as Chinese, and Russia should in some cases proceed independently; there is no need to be confrontational, including to the United States, given that some in the region see Russia rather than trying to resolve the Korean problem, aiming to poke the United States in the eye, as states are careful to avoid sanctions violations toward Moscow that could complicate their US ties; and Russian initiatives should take the interests of all into account and be appealing.
At the Moscow Carnegie Center Andrei Lan'kov on November 23 suggested how to limit the threat from North Korea's nuclear program through a compromise permitting it to keep some of its nuclear weapons and avoiding regional destabilization. He contends that the main reason for delay to 2002 in fulfilling the plans of the Agreed Framework was the expectation of regime collapse by the United States and others. As the North's economic situation was ameliorated by 2002, it was ready to resume its nuclear program beyond what US intelligence had correctly detected. No US guarantee of security would suffice. Given views that survival is more important than wealth, nuclear weapons are seen as essential. China under pressure forced the North to agree to symbolic and reversible concessions that led to talks, but promises to denuclearize should not be taken seriously. They buy time and soften sanctions. The Sino-US trade war has led China to revert to closing its eyes to small firms violating the sanctions, which has hardened the North's position. Without this, it would still insist on some nuclear weapons. The United States is not ready yet for the necessary compromise, adds Lan'kov, due to naïve thinking, delaying an agreement.
On December 11 Oleg Kir'ianov interviewed Georgii Toloraya in Rossiiskaya Gazeta on Russia's major role in support of the peace process in Korea as a second Trump-Kim summit is approaching. Everything depends on Trump's political will; Kim is waiting for sanctions relief as evidence the United States is serious. US bureaucrats with psychological confidence in US superiority will not agree, insisting on denuclearization while leaving the concept vague and struggling to find a compromise move. Meanwhile, the North has separated its ties to Washington and Seoul, discussing nuclear issues with one and economic ones with the other. Its situation is very stable, and it is patient, perhaps having reached some agreement with China for assistance if it does not raise tensions. Kim has not promised to halt anything more than nuclear and rocket tests, even insisting in his New Year's address on the need to mass produce ballistic rockets, raising further the price the United States will have to pay for dismantling programs. Toloraya views the current situation on the peninsula as favorable for Russia in any case. Sanctions are not lifted, but if they were, US business—not Russian—would benefit, and US help to Russia on connecting railways is doubtful. At the same time, the situation is not ideal for China, which is losing control over it, although it may have cut a deal with Kim. Kim is a risktaker, and Trump's concern is winning the re-election. Kim may find Vietnam's strategic approach after it defeated the United States useful, finding common cause with it in containing China and getting the United States to disregard human rights issues.
Should DPRK-US relations turn sour, Seoul would be in a difficult position, doing all it can to sustain dialogue and striving for a railway opening good for Russia. Pyongyang will accept no more than "conditional, reciprocal, incremental denuclearization." Washington will concentrate on the threat to itself, making a compromise possible. Moscow lacks serious leverage on Pyongyang, but it is seen as supporting a compromise and dialogue. Toloraya makes clear that it does not benefit from conflict there—another Syria, apparently pushing back against some in Russia. Seoul is now acting quite independently on North Korea, but the alliance will endure. As for its sanctions affecting Russian ties to North Korea, some companies dependent on the US market are fearful now but may change as Russia shows how important this is. Talk of Kim visiting Russia continues, but Toloraya does not regard a visit as necessary for either side, proposing a short stopover in Pyongyang for Putin instead, since positions are already in agreement. Pyongyang understands that use of its workers depends not on Moscow but on the UN.
Oleg Paramonov in RSMD on January 15 pointed to security as key to Russo-Japanese relations, beginning with a reminder of sanctions Japan imposed in March 2014. Japan has shifted away from solidarity with its Western partners, as in the Skripal affair. On the surface, this is to resolve the "territorial dispute," but the deeper reasons are the situation on the Korean Peninsula and security challenges from China. One response is to revise restrictions on Japan's self-defense and collective self-defense with friendly states, including the US alliance. Yet, Tokyo is disconcerted by US policy toward North Korea, which ignores Tokyo and leaves it a lone player with no summit prospects. On other tracks Washington is likewise failing Tokyo and its long-term goal of "open regionalism." This has pushed Tokyo toward Moscow, seen in a September 2017 Patrushev-Yachi memorandum on consultations between security offices. The resulting impression is that Russia's tilt toward North Korea has paid dividends in Abe's pursuit of Putin. Also, defense forces are now in closer contact. Tokyo assumes that although Moscow acts very decisively in the post-Soviet space, it is a status quo power in East Asia. Sino-Russian military ties are a serious "headache" for Tokyo, which aims to do all it can to prevent an "Eastern Entente" as Abe, unlike some predecessors, is an independent player globally and regionally toward Russia. Trump's election and Brexit freed Tokyo of pressure to keep a united front toward Moscow. Meanwhile, integration of missile defenses with the United States could cause Japan to lose control over how much it becomes involved in a possible regional crisis or could fuel a regional arms race. Russia's shifting defense policies in the area are seen in Tokyo as a barrier to trust in security. Russia acceded to Japan's request in 2018 not to hold joint military exercises on the Kurile Islands, while Japan turned down its invitation to send observers. 2 +2 talks resumed, but the results were quite modest. Also, since 2014 Japan has toughened export controls, limiting ties to Russia. Such restrictions lead the author to doubt much cooperation in security will follow. The article points to US-Japan missile defense cooperation as the most serious barrier, not excluding Aegis Ashore in Japan linked in Russia to the US exit from the INF treaty. No success has been realized in convincing Russia that missile defense is under Japan's control, not that of the Pentagon, unlike THAAD in South Korea. The conclusion is that Abe is both under the positive influence of his father, who sought better ties with Moscow, and his grandfather, who put the Japan-US security treaty into effect.
On November 22 Aleksei Kuprianov wrote in Rossiya v Global'noi Politike of a great turnabout in South Asia, pointing to closer Sino-Indian relations. Although some factors will continue to divide these states for perhaps 5-10 years, he calls on Russia to treat India as a reliable partner on a par with the PRC and the United States. Optimistic about the future of Indo-Chinese ties, Kuprianov focuses on how this will impact Russia. The new era began with the April 2018 Wuhan summit, which achieved far more than expected in a wide range of areas and proved that Indo-US ties are far from the tacit alliance some have claimed. The author sees Trump showing less interest in South Asia, angering Delhi with his blackmail and giving it no choice but to draw closer to Beijing, which would have occurred anyways for economic and security reasons. Trade may have hit $90 billion in 2018, as investments are also rising rapidly. America First reduces US investments, making India turn to China; India helps China weather a trade war. As for security, states on the Indian Ocean are turning to China economically, and India lacks the means to be seen as the protector against Chinese imperialism. Its best hope is to work out a demarcation of spheres of influence with China that guarantees its economic interests in return for India's economic and security ones, as India preserves its valued strategic autonomy. Having once shifted toward the United States, India is now shifting toward China, giving Russia more room to maneuver. Of course, China and India drawing closer is a Russian dream even if there is no prospect of India agreeing to a triangular alliance. The problem is that, under the influence of pro-American propaganda and in response to Russian moves in the direction of China and Pakistan, Indian elites are prone to dismiss Russia as a balancing force, as they dismissed the United States in the Cold War. Russia is left in a difficult situation, unable to be competitive economically and unwilling to sacrifice good ties to calm Indian elites, but somehow it must demonstrate its independence from China. It can upgrade its military presence in the Indian Ocean or seek "2 + 1" ties with India and regional states, such as Vietnam (the first choice with which Russia has close military ties, as it does with India), Indonesia (the most promising long-term target), and Japan. All options require consultations with China, which would benefit by states seeking defense not from the United States but from Russia and India as a pair.
쉐어버튼
BRI EEU G20 Greater Eurasia INF Treaty SCO Trump-Kim summit turn to the East
Prev	Next	List
Jul 03,2019 National Commentaries
Jul 01,2019 Open Forum
China and the Korean Peninsula after the Hanoi Summit
Jun 26,2019 Alternative Scenarios
Positive Scenario I
RussocentrismbankingJapan-ROK tensionshomogeneityNational Security Liberal international order


text:
Q: Open a new Stage with Jmenuitem hey folks as you see in the code I want to add new  stage in the jmenuitem
but it give me this error because I cant use swing with stage as I think
enter image description here
and here is the error
enter image description here

A: Mixing Swing and JavaFX is not recommended unless you really know what you are doing and have a really good reason for it.
Otherwise, don't import swing and awt classes into a JavaFX project, only import JavaFX classes.
JavaFX has menu system support. If you are using JavaFX then use that.
You appear to want a ContextMenu rather than an application menu.  JavaFX supports both types and both are documented in the referenced tutorial.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Opinion – 25 July 2020
on Saturday, 25 July 2020 at 11.00 am by Peter Owen
categorised as Opinion
Stephen Parsons Surviving Church Conflicts of Interest and Church Discipline
Chris Phillips All Things Lawful And Honest Listening to the Laity
Meg Warner The Tablet Worship behind closed doors?
[Free registration is required to access this article.]
«Above all, those who wrote to me have questioned the right of the Church of England to speak as the established Church any more, having abdicated its national role during the crisis: "it is a scandal that there has been no call for days of prayer, or the Archbishop speaking to the nation to encourage us".»- Chris Phillips I would go further. Arrangements have been made for services to consecrate and install bishops but there has been no national memorial service for those who passed but whose families were unable to hold funerals. When people were gathering once a week… Read more »
Reply to Kate
The consecrations of bishops was held in a private chapel with about a dozen people present (including the new bishop and the consecrators). Such a gathering would not have satisfied me for a service of national prayer or thanksgiving. Maybe we can wait until we can gather in unity to hold such a service. I watched a couple conservative Anglican pundits on YouTube grumble about the requirements of closing churches. Then one of them mentioned that his own parish had voted 70% to 30% not to re-open at the present time. Clearly, each of us have different notions of… Read more »
Froghole
Prior to the end of the last war, it was not uncommon for the Church to lead other churches in 'national days of prayer', which had the official blessing of the sovereign and the government. The last of these occurred on 6 July 1947 (approved by the atheist Attlee), before the doomed restoration of dollar/sterling convertibility on 15 July, which was a condition of the Keynes-Clayton loan of 1946. In the inter-war period they occurred in the wake of the formation of the national government and the Munich agreement, the latter (2 October 1938) being an act of thanksgiving… Read more »
Last edited 5 months ago by Froghole
Reply to Froghole
«This is perhaps especially surprising when the bench is now dominated by self-proclaimed 'evangelicals' who prioritise 'mission'.»
I agree with that. It was a (hopefully) once in a generation missional opportunity but it was squandered.
The right of the Church of England to speak as the established Church is very questionable for a much more fundamental reason. According to the British Social Attitudes Surveys, less than 14% of the population associate themselves with the C of E, and this reduces to 3% amongst the younger generation.
Reply to Paul
As you say, 14% of the entire population, en route to 3% over coming years, means a church in England, but Church of England?
Jonathan Jamal
My dear Friends in Christ reading your comments brings to the fore, what can be the weakest point in any Christian denomination, even my own the Roman Catholic Church, that the mission of the Church can be weak when its prayer is weak. In Anglican history within the 20th Century, there was a Franciscan Friar within the Church of England, Father William Sirr, commonly known as Father William of Glasshampton, who prior to embracing the Franciscan Religious had worked in an Anglican Parish as a Curate, and than after he embraced the Religious life, he was swept up in the… Read more »
Fr John Harris-White
I am fortunate to be 86 years old, and therefore remember the King calling for days of prayer. Part of my life, and upbringing. King George the sixth was one of my heroes. Now today her daughter speaks to the nation, with the response of her people. Sadly the bench of Bishops has remained, and still remains silent. Do they have a virus? In todays world it is so much easier for the church to speak to the people, and a national service would be appreciated. Perhaps the bishops need to speak to the Dean of Canterbury who through his… Read more »
Reply to Fr John Harris-White
Silence from the bishops indeed. As Chris Phillips wrote I hope that the Bishops will listen very carefully to what the Spirit is saying to the Church through the voices of ordinary people in pews across the nation…It is to be hoped that, in the light of the experience of the impact of the restrictions on people's spiritual wellbeing, this freedom will not be so easily relinquished in future. I am not optimistic. I have tried, but failed, to find out whether there is an end date, by when all stipendiary clergy are expected to have reopened their churches and… Read more »
Reading Michaels comments on the tardiness of some clergy in moving to reopen their churches, I must write after much anquish of the silence of some clergy to even contact their regular members on the church roll, either by phone or e mail. Since the lockdown myself, nor my husband has had any communication either by e mail of phone from any member of our clergy team of our Episcopal Cathedral in Edinburgh. At the start I wrote the Provost regarding a member of the congregation. My husband wrote the vice provost regarding advice from the Scottish Government a week… Read more »

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


OBJECT OF SANCTITY - written during The Bladnoch Altarpiece residency at Unit 3 Gallery April-May 2018, on the site of the former Bladnoch Creamery near Wigtown, Scotland. The poem is read by Gary 'Breagle' Martin in the soundscape 'Till the Cows Come Home' created for the exhibition (listen on player button above), which features voices of women who worked in the creamery.
HOW CAN IT BE AN OBJECT OF SANCTITY?
Mural and Performance Project - If These Walls Could Talk 2016 - the walls tell the story of a man who lived in Room 1D at the Carlton Arms Hotel in New York. Supported by Carlton Arms Arts Project and Creative Scotland/VAACMA Award.


OCZ today announced the latest addition to the award-winning OCZ NVIDIA SLI certified series, the world's first 4GB PC2-8000 SLI-Ready DDR2 modules. Optimized specifically for the nForce platforms, this series features an ideal combination of reduced latencies and high density to support the ultimate gaming experience. The PC2-8000 SLI-Ready Series are certified to run at optimal performance levels and are the ultimate upgrade for entry-level enthusiasts seeking an exceptional memory kit with true "plug and play" functionality at an excellent price point.
The OCZ PC2-8000 4GB SLI-Ready Series is the optimal memory solution for current and upcoming DirectX 10 graphic-intensive PC titles and provides unsurpassed reliability and performance to unleash every graphic possibility. The new high-density OCZ PC2-8000 4GB SLI-Ready Series is equipped with Nvidia Enhanced Performance Profiles (EPP) to optimize the modules' gaming performance on nForce SLI-based motherboards.
Sunnyvale, CA—July 8, 2008—OCZ Technology Group, Inc., a worldwide leader in innovative ultra-high performance and high reliability memory, today announced the latest addition to the award-winning OCZ NVIDIA® SLI™ certified series, the world's first 4GB PC2-8000 SLI-Ready DDR2 modules. Optimized specifically for the nForce platforms, this series features an ideal combination of reduced latencies and high density to support the ultimate gaming experience. The PC2-8000 SLI-Ready Series are certified to run at optimal performance levels and are the ultimate upgrade for entry-level enthusiasts seeking an exceptional memory kit with true "plug and play" functionality at an excellent price point.
The OCZ PC2-8000 4GB SLI-Ready Series is the optimal memory solution for current and upcoming DirectX® 10 graphic-intensive PC titles and provides unsurpassed reliability and performance to unleash every graphic possibility. For enthusiasts, gamers, and system-builders using Windows® Vista™ as their choice operating system and who need the performance of high-speed memory, these newest PC2-8000 4GB Kits are the ultimate SLI certified memory upgrade to increase your system responsiveness. The new high-density OCZ PC2-8000 4GB SLI-Ready Series is equipped with NVIDIA Enhanced Performance Profiles (EPP) to optimize the modules' gaming performance on nForce® SLI-based motherboards.
As part of the NVIDIA SLI technology ecosystem, these modules undergo a rigorous series of tests by NVIDIA and are certified to provide enthusiasts and gamers the performance, compatibility, and stability they seek when building an SLI gaming system. Tailored specifically for the NVIDIA gamer, each OCZ 4GB PC2-8000 certified memory kit features the exclusive black SLI-Ready XTC (Xtreme Thermal Convection) heatspreader for the most efficient heat dissipation, and a look that stands out like its performance.
OCZ PC2-8000 4GB SLI-Ready memory modules are programmed to boot at a blistering 1GHz DDR2 with tight timings of 5-4-4 on Intel chipsets and 5-5-4 on AMD based systems. Only motherboards equipped with the custom-designed BIOS, such as those designed for NVIDIA nForce SLI MCPs, can detect the optimized SPD profiles and ensure the memory functions under the best possible conditions. The exclusive OCZ SPD specifications take out the guesswork and provide enthusiasts and gamers with significant overclocked performance with no manual adjustment or compatibility issues. Additionally, all SLI-Ready memory is backed with toll-free technical support, the exclusive EVP (Extended Voltage Protection) coverage, and an industry leading Lifetime Warranty.
With the fusion of the sophisticated EPP memory specification, high-speed OCZ DDR2 architecture, the PC2-8000 4GB SLI kits are the ultimate breakthrough for advanced SLI platform gaming performance.


As expected, somewhat looser, but by no means too "relaxed". They fit great and have gotten great compliments. I like them so much that I order 2 more .
Perfect! True size and good stretch. Fast delivery - ordered just before several days ago and they came today . Really recommend this webside and will buy again!


Hey guys, Happy New Year. May this year be far better than last year for us all. So on the 29th of December, 2012 i made up my 2nd bride and i decided to make a video out of the pictures i took. The pictures are not clear because i used my Nokia Asha 200 phone. Hopefully i would get a digital camera very, very soon and be able to take great pictures.
Gotta run, currently on call AGAIN!! I hope i would be able to write very soon.


text:
Q: Effects of impedance mismatch on RF signals from antenna I'm building an antenna array that operates at high frequencies (around 2 GHz).
I want to use a SDR dongle that has a 75 ohm input impedance as receiver, I've also bought the coax cable, a 4 way adder and a line amplifier that have 75 Ohms as well as the Antenna.
The problem is I need to connect the antenna to a Low Noise Amplifier (LNA) and the LNA to the adder and eventually to the SDR. but they only sell 50 Ohm input/output impedance LNAs.
My question will this have a huge impact on my signal? what is the effect of this mismatch? is reflection going to be really significant?

A: The mismatch attenuation will only be 0.177 dB. Not much.
However, a 50 ohm LNA is designed to operate in a 50 ohm system. It will provide the specified noise figure for a 50 ohm input only! With 75 ohms input, the noise figure will be something else (worse) than stated in the datasheet. This  leads to loss of sensitivity, but with the data you have provided it is impossible to say how big of a loss.


text:
Below is a list of episodes from What's Happening!!, a sitcom that aired on ABC from 1976 to 1979.

Series overview

Episodes

Season 1 (1976–77)

Season 2 (1977–78)

Season 3 (1978–79)

Home releases

External links

Lists of American sitcom episodes

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
For more than four decades, CANP has actively engaged in the politics process, educating legislators and policy makers about the role NPs play in California's health care delivery system and protecting and expanding NP practice.
The recent passage of Assembly Bill 890 (Jim Wood, D, Santa Rose) illustrates the effectiveness and success of CANP's advocacy efforts. Through these efforts, California nurse practitioners (NPs) now join 22 other states, including every state in the West, in allowing NPs to practice without physician supervision. Our role in leading and mobilizing a diverse, 80+ member coalition and educating lawmakers and health care stakeholders about California's several and ever-growing provider shortage will help increase access to high quality health care for all Californians.
The California Association for Nurse Practitioners was founded October 8-9, 1977 as the California Coalition of Nurse Practitioners (CCNP), during a statewide CE seminar by a group of pioneering nurse practitioners from the Master's in Health Services Program at the University of California, Davis.
First statewide NP mailing list is developed and published by CCNP.
The first annual CCNP conference is held in Monterey, March 1978.
CCNP becomes a mutual benefit, non-profit corporation. Articles of Incorporation signed February 7, 1983.
Legislation passes mandating nurse practitioners credentialing by Board of Registered Nursing (BRN), (AB 2629, Bronzan, Chapter 525, Statutes of 1984).
CCNP's Political Action Committee is formed to empower NPs to participate in the political process supporting legislative candidates.
Nurse practitioners obtain furnishing authority (AB 4372, Isenberg, Chapter 493, Statutes of 1986).
Direct billing for Medi-Cal reimbursement for Pediatric and Primary Care Nurse Practitioners is authorized (AB 1224, Chapter 702, Statutes of 1991).
Nurse practitioners obtain authority to furnish Controlled Substances Scheduled III-V (AB 1077, Hannigan, Chapter 455, Statutes of 1996).
Pharmacists required to include nurse practitioners' names as on prescription labels (AB 1545, Correa, Chapter 914, Statutes of 1999).
Nurse practitioners are defined as professional employees who may be exempt from mandatory overtime — thus allowing nurse practitioners to negotiate salaried positions without the required mandatory overtime after 8 hours required for registered nurses (AB 60, Knox, Chapter 134, Statutes of 1999).
Nurse practitioners may supervise Medical Assistants performing venipuncture and injections (SB 111, Alpert, Chapter 358, Statutes of 2001).
Nurse practitioners authorized to request and receive sample medications (AB 1545, Correa, Chapter 914, Statutes of 1999).
The California Coalition of Nurse Practitioners (CCNP) is renamed the California Association for Nurse Practitioners (CANP).
Nurse practitioners obtain legal authority to furnish Controlled Substances Schedule II (AB 1196, Montanez, Chapter 748, Statutes of 2003).
An initial applicant is required for a nurse practitioner certificate to possess a master's degree in nursing or in clinical filed related to nursing (AB 2226, Spitzer, Chapter 344, Statutes of 2004).
Removes physician name requirement on prescription label when a nurse practitioner, certified nurse midwife, or physician assistant writes the prescription (AB 2660, Leno, Chapter 191, Statutes of 2004).
Nurse practitioners authorized to apply for a Medi-Cal provider number and bill Medi-Cal independent of a physician (AB 1591, Chan, Chapter 719, Statutes of 2006).
Nurse practitioners authorized to certify disability for the purposes of a disability placard or plate (AB 2120, Liu, Chapter 116, Statutes of 2006).
Nurse practitioners are authorized to obtain consent for autologous blood and direct/non-direct homologous blood transfusions (SB 102, Migden, Chapter 88, Statutes of 2007).
Nurse practitioners have the ability to sign DMV Physical exams for bus drivers and farm-labor vehicle drivers (AB 139, Bass, Chapter 158, Statutes of 2007).
Assembly Bill 1436, the state's first bill regarding NP scope of practice, is introduced by Assemblymember Ed Hernandez.
Nurse practitioners are clearly authorized to order durable medical equipment, certify disability, and to approve, sign, or modify a plan of care for a patient requiring home health services, within the standardized procedure (SB 819, Yee, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2009).
The Unemployment Insurance Code is updated to reflect nurse practitioners' authority to authorize disability benefits (AB 2188, Bradford and Niello, Chapter 378, Statutes of 2010).
California State University (CSU) campuses throughout California may award a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) degree (AB 867, Nava and Arambula, Chapter 416, Statutes of 2010).
Nurse practitioners are permitted to perform consultation and treatment in an emergency department, under certain conditions (SB 233, Pavley, Chapter 333, Statutes of 2011).
Through administrative advocacy, CANP works with the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to issue provider numbers to NPs, allowing all NPs to bill Medi-Cal directly rather than under a physician's Medi-Cal provider number.
Nurse practitioners will no longer be required to have six months of physician-supervised furnishing experience prior to receiving a furnishing number from the Board of Registered Nursing. (SB 1524, Hernandez, Chapter 796, Statutes of 2012).
CANP helped lead the effort in support of Senate Bill 491 (Hernandez), which proposed permitting nurse practitioners in California to practice to the full extent of their training and expertise. The bill was passed by the State Senate but was held in the Assembly.
NPs, physician assistants (PAs) and certified midwives are permitted to perform abortions via aspiration technique in the first trimester of pregnancy without a physician present (AB 154, Atkins, Chapter 662, Statutes of 2013). California thus becomes the fifth state in the nation to allow practitioners other than physicians to perform first trimester abortions.
NPs and PAs are permitted to supervise medical assistants (MAs) in all practice settings, not just in community clinics, allowing for the treatment of more patients, more quickly (SB 352, Pavley, Chapter 286, Statutes of 2013).
CANP successfully advocates to include NPs among the school personnel addressed in AB 1667 (Williams, Chapter 329, Statutes of 2014), which replaces mandatory universal tuberculosis (TB) testing of school personnel with a TB risk assessment, which would identify high-risk personnel and require TB testing of only those individuals.
CANP spearheads the effort in support of Senate Bill 323 (Hernandez-Eggman), which would enable full practice authority for California nurse practitioners. The bill is approved by the full Senate but fails passage in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions. It is subsequently designated as a two-year bill, meaning its progress could resume from the same point when the second year of the 2015-16 legislative session commences.
Gov. Jerry Brown signs Assembly Bill 637 (Campos), which authorizes nurse practitioners and physician assistants to sign and create valid Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms and make them actionable medical orders.
Designated as a two-year bill and granted reconsideration by the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, Senate Bill 323 fails to garner sufficient support from committee members to advance, thus ending its progress.
Throughout the year, CANP commemorates the 40th anniversary of its founding, marking four decades as the unifying voice of nurse practitioners in California.
With support from CANP, Senate Bill 554 (Stone) is passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown. The measure conforms California law with recent changes in federal law to permit nurse practitioners and physician's assistants the authority to prescribe medication for opioid addiction treatment.
Gov. Brown signs CANP-supported Assembly Bill 422 (Arambula), which extends the authority of the California State University system to enroll new students in its Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) program.
Reflecting its growing status as an influential voice in the health care policy realm, CANP announces its first-ever endorsements of candidates for statewide office. CANP declared its support of Gavin Newsom for Governor, and Ed Hernandez for Lieutenant Governor.
The California Future Health Workforce Commission issues its final report. Among its conclusions is that the removal of practice barriers imposed on nurse practitioners in California is a vital step in assuring direct access to care for California's growing and diverse population.
CANP supported Assembly Bill 890 (Wood) would ensure direct access to care for Californians by removing antiquated barriers to nurse practitioner practice. The bill passed the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions by a vote of 16-0 on April 9, 2019. It was then designated as a two-year bill by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, meaning it could resume its progress from the same point when the second year of the 2019-2020 legislative session commences.
The Assembly Appropriations Committee approved AB 890 on January 23, 2020, sending it forward for a vote by the full Assembly. On January 27, 2020, the Assembly then passed the measure by an overwhelming bipartisan vote (61-1).
The bill was then heard by the Senate Business & Professions Committee on Saturday, August 8, 2020 and passed on a 7-1 vote. The bill was placed in the Senate Appropriations Committee "Suspense File" on August 18, 2020, then successfully passed out of the committee on August 20, 2020.
AB 890 passed out of the California Legislature on August 31, 2020.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 890 into law on September 29, 2020.


Most doctors throughout the medical profession can do a great job of relieving the secondary conditions (symptoms) temporarily. For most people it begins with prescription medication, which can often alleviate the secondary conditions by turn off pain receptors, but doesn't get to the root of the problem. Another common choice is physical therapy. Here the goals are to reduce muscle spasm, mobilize the joints, and strengthen weak musculature. For those who haven't received relief of the secondary conditions, injections and sometimes even more invasive procedures such as surgery are recommended.
It's not that one method is better than the other, we simply have a different set of goals in our office when compared to most traditional doctors. Our focus restoring the optimal function of the body, not just treating the symptoms.


text:
Just Talk to focus on #MeToo Movement, sexual misconduct
March 13, 2018 Joy Webb	0 Comments
Joy Webb
jwebb4@uccs.edu
Sexual misconduct is the topic of discussion for the Kraemer Family Library's Just Talk seminar.
Respect on Campus, the Department of Communication and the Kraemer Family Library bring students #MeToo, #Enough, sexual assault, social media: Sexual misconduct allegations to the media on March 13.
The event will focus on how the #MeToo movement has allowed universities to navigate sexual misconduct on college campuses and how it has changed our culture.
Katie Sullivan, associate professor of communication, will present on organization, individual and group thought, as well as how media impacts the #MeToo movement.
Rebecca Gianarkis, violence prevention education coordinator in the Office of Institutional Equity, said that the Just Talk series provides an informal tone.
"They all kind of have a more informal kind of atmosphere, and some are more structured than others, it tends to be more interactive," she said.
Katasha Dawson, a women's advocate for the Office of Violence Against Women as a women's advocate, felt the need to discuss the movement at UCCS. Dawson works toward promoting awareness and education around sexual misconduct, such as stalking, dating violence, sexual assault and domestic violence.
In 2016, 18 crimes classified as Violence Against Women were reported to UCCS Police.
"There was a lot of sexual misconduct allegations in the media, over like 100, so I thought it would be really cool to bring in like reality or like a real perspective into the community to see how they want to discuss and talk about it," said Dawson.
Along with Dawson, Ray Fisco, prevention and outreach manager for the Dean of Students, helped to organize this event, including other Just Talks events, such as "The F Word," which focused on feminism.
"We thought that this was a really appropriate event to replace this just because of everything we're seeing on the news, on Facebook, on social media when it comes to this international movement of sexual misconduct that's happening all across the world, and how people are speaking up about it," said Fisco.
All students are welcome to attend the event.
For more information on the Just Talk series, email Lindsay Coppa at lcoppa@uccs.edu, or call 255-3060.
← UCCS radio wins national award for best sports talk show
SGA Senate passes more funding requests, member committee recommendations →
On-campus crimes in January, reports in surrounding area
February 19, 2017 Jasmine Nelson
UCCS students hope for an engaged, accessible chancellor
March 21, 2017 Kyle Guthrie
News Briefs: DACA statements, club budget updates, vice chancellor candidates announced
October 20, 2017 Jasmine Nelson 0


Beautiful Pastel tones, frosted white is the majority of this natural Agate Gemstone Bracelet. Blotches of beautiful earthy tones make it unique. Perfect for spring and summer.
The Agate beads are round and have a frosted look. A gorgeous European Style Bead with diamantes, in, silver plated, embellish the centre, with round Agate.


Since 1986, Northeast Wisconsin Stargazers (NEWSTAR) has shared the wonders of the sky with each other and the community at large. Our mission for the next millennium and beyond is to share club resources including personal experiences and equipment with all interested.
Our monthly meetings are held at the University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley(map) on Midway Road in Menasha on the third Wednesday of each month from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM. Topics are geared toward both beginner and more advanced amateur astronomers. Monthly meetings include videos, slide shows, lectures, reviews of upcoming celestial events, sharing of experiences, participative projects and much more. Meetings are free and open to the public.
Telescope building, mirror grinding, astrophotography, field trips, club picnic and holiday party.


text:
Q: Concrete Mathematics Warmup 4: Expanding a Triple Sum I am trying to solve this, rather simple, triple sum, by expanding it and first summing with respect to the index k.
$$ \sum_{1 \leq i < j < k \leq 4} a_{ijk} $$
I didn't quite get the trick to expand multiple sums but I attempted anyway. I used the Iverson notation explained in the book.
$$ \sum_{i,j,k}  a_{ijk}\hspace{0,1cm} [ 3 \leq k\leq 4]\hspace{0,1cm} [ 2\leq j\leq 3]\hspace{0,1cm} [1\leq i\leq 2]  $$
But this is clearly wrong since i need to add the condition that $$i\neq j \wedge j\neq k$$
I can't go further. Can someone explain how to proceed?

A: Let $ n\in\mathbb{N}^{*}\setminus\left\lbrace 1,2\right\rbrace $, then we have the following :
$$ \sum_{1\leq i<j<k\leq n}{a_{ijk}}=\sum_{k=3}^{n}{\sum_{j=2}^{k-1}{\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}{a_{ijk}}}} $$

A: You can easily reason out that the only combinations of numbers satisfying $1\leqslant i <j<k\leqslant4$ are $123$, $124$, $134$, and $234$. Thus your sum equals
$$a_{123}+a_{124}+a_{134}+a_{234}.$$

Alternatively, working with the Iverson bracket, we have the following in the general case:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{1\leqslant i<j<k\leqslant n}a_{ijk}&=\sum_k\sum_j\sum_i a_{ijk}[1\leqslant i][i<j][j<k][k\leqslant n]\\
&=\sum_k[k\leqslant n]\sum_j[j<k]\sum_i a_{ijk}[1\leqslant i][i<j]\\
&=\sum_{k\leqslant n}\sum_{j<k}\sum_{1\leqslant i<j} a_{ijk},
\end{align*}
or written differently,
$$\sum_{k=3}^n\sum_{j=2}^{k-1}\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} a_{ijk},$$
where the cases for $k=1,2$ and $j=1$ are excluded because of the restriction on the following subscripts (when $k=1$, there are no $j<k$; similarly when $k=2$, we can only have $j=1$, but then there are no $i<j$).
Expanding this out with $n=4$:
\begin{align*}
   \sum_{k=3}^4\sum_{j=2}^{k-1}\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} a_{ijk} &= \sum_{j=2}^{2}\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} a_{ij3} +\sum_{j=2}^{3}\sum_{i=1}^{j-1} a_{ij4}\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^{1} a_{i23} + \sum_{i=1}^{1} a_{i24} +\sum_{i=1}^{2} a_{i34}\\
&=  a_{123} +  a_{124} + a_{134} + a_{234}.
\end{align*}


text:
Cinematography Discussions
Compiliations of Discussions
Working Practices
VFX/SFX
General Cinematography
Lighting & Grip
Post-VFX-ACES
RAW, Log 4K etc
Camera & Lens Evaluations
CML-Tests Home
Full Frame Lenses 2019
EZ1
ARRI Signature
1.8* Anamorphic
1.8* Anamorphic SF
35-140 Anamorphic + Expander
Fuji Premier + Expander
Samyamg
Spirit Lab
TLS Noctilux
Tokina Vista
Whitepoint
Digital Cinematography Cameras 2018
Alexa Mini
BMD Ursa Mini Pro
Canon C700 6k to 4K
Canon C700 4K RAW
Kineflex Mavo
Kineflex Terra
Panasonic EVA1
Panasonic Varicam Pure
RED Gemini
RED Monstro
Sony Venice
Alexa SXT RAW UHD
BMD Ursa Mini-Pro UHD
Canon C200 UHD
Canon C300-2 raw UHD
Canon C700 raw 4K UHD
Panasonic Varicam Pure UHD
Panasonic Varicam LT & Odyssey UHD
RED Helium UHD
Sony F55 UHD
Sony Venice 4K and 6K
Cinematography Lenses Flare Tests
Anamorphic Lenses
Hawk VLite
Hawk Flare
Hawk 1.3 anamorphic
Cooke Anamorphic
Arri Master Primes
Arri Ultra Primes
TLS Cooke S3
Cooke S4 Mini
Cooke S4
Cooke 5i
Illumina Coated
Illumina Uncoated
Leica Summilux
Leica Summicron
Panavision Primo
Schneider Xenar
Zeiss CP2
Angeniuex Optimo 15-40mm
Arri Alura 15.5 to 45mm
Canon 15.5 to 47mm
Canon 17 to 120mm
Fujinon Cabrio ZK 19 to 90mm
Zeiss CZ2 15 to 30mm
Lens Comparisons Anamorphic, Spherical, S35 & FF
Cinematography FF Lenses 2019
Wide Sperical WO
Apogee-28mm-T2
Cinescope-TLS-Leica-R-28mm-T2-9
Cooke-Panchro-27mm-T2-2
Cooke-S4-25mm-T2-8
Cooke-S7-27mm-T2
Fujinon-18-55-MK-at-25mm-T2-8
Fujinon-18-55-at-25mm-T2-8
Red-Pro-Prime-25mm-T1-8
Samyang-25mm-T1-5
Spiritlab-25mm-T1-6
Zeiss-CP3-25mm-T2-1
Zeiss-Supreme-25mm-T1-5
Wide Spherical T4
Cooke-Panchro-27mm-T4
Fujinon-18-55-MK-at-25mm-T4
Mamiya-Duclos-24mm-T4
Samyang-25mm-T4
Spiritlab-25mm-T4
Zeiss-CP3-25mm-T4
Zeiss-Supreme-25mm-T4
Medium Spherical WO
Bokkelux-50mm-T2
Cooke-Mini-S4-50mm-T2-8
Fuji-Cabrio-19-90-at-50mm-T2-8
Fujinon-MK-18-55-at-50mm-T2-8
Leica-Summilux-M-50mm-T1-8
Leitz-Summilux-50mm-T1-4
Leitz-Thalia-50mm-T2-8
Mamiya-Duclos-55mm-T2-8
Red-Pro-Prime-50mm-T2
Speedmaster-50mm-T0-95
Whitepoint-Optics-60mmT3-5
Zeiss-Superspeed-S16-50mm-T1-4
Zeiss-Supreme-50mmT1-5
Medium Spherical T4
Cinescope-TLS-Leica-R-50mm-T4
Cooke-Mini-S4-50mm-T4
Fujinon-MK-18-50-at-50mm-T4
Fujinon-Cabrio-19-90-at-50mm-T4
Leica-Summilux-M-50mm-T4
Leitz-Summilux-50mm-T4
Leitz-Thalia-50mm-T4
Speedmaster-50mm-T4
Whitepoint-Optics-60mm-T4
Zeiss-Superspeed-S16-50mm-T4
Atlas-Orion-Anamorphic-65mm-T4
Arri-Zeiss-Master-Anamorphic-28mm-T4
Arri-Zeiss-Master-Anamorphic-28mm-T1-9
ACES on a low budget shoot
ACES LUT's for use in a non-ACES environment
Autofocus for an entire movie
Alexa skin - 4 stops over and back
Skin - Alexa - 435/5219
All Camera and Lens evaluation from 2000 onwards
Cinematography-CML Info
Geoff's Cinerant Blog
Cinematography Mailing List Info
Subscription & Donations
Cinematography Discussion List Help
Conditions of Membership
Cinematography Equipment Sales
DP's & Directors
On the wake of many E-mails. I was wondering, what is for you, the perfect Director/DoP relationship?
I'm very curious.
Kevin Demeo
No matter how many do's and dont's you draw up about the roles of DPs and Directors the only way you're going to get what you want is to stick up for it and be prepared to walk if necessary.
I know it ain't easy but when a director says "time to put the promists in" that's the time to walk up to an actor and give some directions or shout "Action". Seriously, it's time to remind him gently who the DP is. The same with an Operator/director who decides your stop. Tell him the first time he does that that's your prerogative as a DP, if he wants to set the stop get a "yes, sir" man.
I did a shoot recently where I was lighting and opping and the director wanted to ride the dolly *during* the takes. I did a couple of takes that way but I was bursting inside from holding back. In the end I just swallowed hard and at the risk of upsetting him I pulled him to one side and said I can't operate like that. He said OK and spent the rest of the shoot at HIS monitors. That's why we have vid assist - don't we? But I should've (with hindsight) told the director on the first take he can't ride the dolly.
I think all the tacit set rules are there for a reason and have been arrived at thru years of trial and error - you break them at your peril. It may seem OK for an Op to set the stop but down the line there will be problems. Wasn't there some posts about Asian ACs taking the readings? Hmmm...now there's a practice full of pitholes waiting for DPs to fall into!
Shangara Singh London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman
Throwing my .25 cents in (inflation, you know) - I completely disagree. As a director of photography our job is to photograph the project according to the director's vision. The director IS the boss. If he/she decides for promists in a scene... That's what's gonna happen. If I feel strongly against it - I will argue the point, but ultimately the director's word is final. It is the director's ass who's on the line much more so than ours. The typical moviegoer does not go to see Kaminski's latest work -- they go to see Spielberg's. 90% of the world has no idea that we even exist... In my work ethic (and I never consider myself a "yes" man, but I do always try to deliver what a director wants) the director is my boss. My job is to serve his/her vision of the film -- not my own agenda. My own agenda must fall under his. This is difficult in situations like my last feature where the director's vision was very contradictory to what I felt -- but we compromised. Ultimately he's happy and I'm happy with parts. It's a sacrifice, but a necessary one, I feel.
Jay Holben
you couldn't be more right. OTOH I understand Shangara's frustration and there are definately times when directors go to far- you're name is on the film as DP and you have to have the say in the photography. you're right its the film that matters. the public doesnt know who we are or care. very true. but OTOH i know- and some respect (i repeat _some_) for my craft and role on the project has to be there.
He may be saying I want the BPM filter - but your AC may have netted behind the lens already, may be using a soft zoom and not want to filtrate. I donno.
If he wants to ride on the dolly my job is to clear a place for him quickly. If he wants to operate a shot, well _maybe_ my job is to set the eyepiece quickly and tell him i can fire the switch on his call. thats never happened but i agree- within reason what he wants is what has to happen. but if he wants to start in on my filter pack and my stop- then i need to talk to him alone and say "sir, please tell me what you want the shot to look like and let me get us there."
I think everyone may be right here. We are there to make HIS film and do what he wants- but we're the photographer not him- and there is a point beyond which he cant encroach. I dont know what that point is- but im sure im not putting any stop on the camera but mine.
in the end of course you have to do what the director wants, but it's a drag. after doing freelance cinematography for a couple of years i'm really starting to think maybe im not fit for it. lately i've had to deal with some megalomaniacs and it has driven me crazy. my problem is not that they want to ride the dolly or put a promist on the lens, but that they demand the most boring photography possible. my attitude is if he wants it he gets it. i set up the shot, i explain to him what it will look like on film, and i have him look through the viewfinder. that way no matter how bad the shot is, he has no one to blame but himself. i see my role to be more than just a technician, not just a guy that knows the film stock catalog numbers and how to work a lightmeter, but as a contributor to the final piece, a collaborator in the work. i've had the pleasure of working with some directors that trusted my sense of aesthetics and style and its commonly agreed by people who know my work that it's been the pieces that stand out in my reel. to me the ideal relationship between a cinematographer and a director is
SemioticK
I was in the position last week of having almost completed an entirely (personality) stress free three week documentary digi-beta shoot. The director had gone home a day early to keep certain appointments in London, and we only had a very short sequence to shoot in a factory in southern France. For the preceeding weeks the director had not only let me get on with getting the picture required, he had never asked to look through the viewfinder, only at completed sequences, unless we were recreating and dramatising when I gave him a monitor to look at. This director is very experienced, and shoots only what he knows will be needed, and seemed to trust me completely despite this being our first job together.
On the last day it was the producer in charge. This producer really wants to direct, and has shot a lot of (broadcast news) stuff of his own on DV. In the factory for the last shoot, he's watching the monitor, with a little lighting going on, suddenly its 'The light should be warmer....stop it down......tilt up half an inch, I don't like that radiator.... look, just do it ok?' I found it very, very irritating, and the sound man gave me a rolled eye 'here we go again' kind of a look. There was almost a scene, but then the sun came out, and I took the CTO's I hadn't wanted anyway off my lamps to get more light out to balance the inside and mountains outside. By the time we were ready to actually shoot it, the lamps were bare, and the sun had gone back in so the scene was back to where I had wanted it to be originally. The tilting up half an inch was also forgotten about, as the subject leaned down into his computer, then sat up, etc etc.
Later, at the wrap dinner, after we had all shared a couple of bottles of wine, the producer was telling us that he had started as a student making anthropological films entirely by himself, and he felt he had a lot to learn about not being a one man band film maker. I chimed in with my 'Learn to let it go and trust the people you've hired at significant expense to do their specialist jobs . Respect them and respect your own judgement in hiring them.' It seemed to go down well. Time will tell.
Chris Merry
Well, certainly. I completely agree -- in a perfect world, or even a good percentage of the time we're hired by director's (and producers) who trust our aesthetic and ability and will then defer to our judgment -- that's the way it's supposed to look. However, just as when I was gaffing, many DP's made lamp, color and diffusion calls very specifically -- which was frustrating, made me a glorified electrician more than a gaffer -- there are director's I've worked with who make lens calls and filtration calls for what they're looking for. I've worked with director's who are DP's who will tell me a stop they're looking for in a particular scene... It's the way they communicate. Does that just make me a glorified operator? Or in the case of a recent commercial where the director wanted to operate a handheld shot -- I let him have it and I AC'd for him letting my first have a break... Whatever works. In reality, if a director that I did not have a relationship with was making all the calls -- lighting, stops, lenses, filtration, stock, movement... I'd probably question why I was there. I would certainly have a talk with him, but barring all else, I'd do what I was asked to do. But perhaps this stems from my directing experience as well... As a director, things are hard enough... If I felt a scene absolutely needed a 1/2 Warm ProMist -- I'd ask for it. I wouldn't want my DP to get offended or pissed off -- if he had a problem I'd want to hear it -- but ultimately, If I want that Mist... I better get that Mist... Ain't I a bastard that way? :)
Something like Steven Poster has with his director friend Jeremy (whose second name I forget, hope I've got the first right!). He once described how they get on so well that they had to stage a fight in front of the crew while they were shooting Roswell to be taken seriously.
Putting on my Mullen hat: Roswell, Director Jeremy Kagan, DP Steven Poster ASC, American Cinematographer Feb 1995!
I've always thought that's how films should be made but too often people's insecurities get in the way and they create unnecessary tension or take it out on someone else and just create a bad stink on the set. Very unproductive.
I've had the good fortune to work with some first class directors in the theatre but in film I've had just bad luck. They've been either totally new to the game (fine and grateful for a couple of gigs only then they want to prove themselves!) or just OK at their job and relying on me to carry them!
Before I retire I would love to work with a director who knew his job, had a good sense of humour and was secure enough to change his thinking when something better was suggested. I've worked with one such director as Camera Op but never as a DP.
In separate interviews both Sidney Pollack and Sidney Lumet pointed out that lenses are very much part of the Director's toolbox. While a Director could most certainly hire a strong DP and a strong Editor, completely defer to them and have a resonable shot of coming away with a film that works as the Director expects, the odds are much higher if the Director understands the tools of those disciplines. Photography, and how to use it to communicate effectively to the audience is an essential skill to a Director, not merely the domain of the DP.
Judith Weston teaches a workshop called "Acting for Directors" in which the Directors must function as Actors. She believes, quite rightfully, that in order for a Director to fully communicate with an Actor, they must understand and experience the process first hand. Perhaps a similar experience should be requisite for DPs. Perhaps those of us who have never directed a dramatic project should do so in order to more fully understand the process and therefore how best to serve the needs of the both the Director and the film while on set.
Michael Siegel
>As a director, things are hard enough... If I felt a scene absolutely needed a 1/2 Warm ProMist -- I'd ask for it. I wouldn't want my DP to get offended or pissed off -- if he had a problem I'd want to hear it -- but ultimately, If I want that Mist... I better get that Mist..
But would you say it infront of the crew, or talk to him privately before hand?
Steven ( Oh man, this topic is just too meaty) Gladstone
I've directed, as well as shot, as well as gaffed, feature films and other stuff.
One of the reasons I like shooting the best of all is that if the scene isn't working, if the dialogue isn't working, if it turns out the actor was great in the audition but is a blithering idiot on the set ...... it's not my problem! I can still make the dang thing look good! That's my job, and I can control it, and it's not that hard to do (usually) as long as I have the tools and the personnel to make it happen.
Directing a feature film is one of the most stressful things a person can ever do. People have NO IDEA until they've actually done it themselves! (if they would, so many people wouldn't want to do it) Ultimately whether the film is any good at all rests on the director's shoulders, no matter who re- wrote the script, mis-produced it, cast a lead actor who was wrong for the part, or shoved a re-edit down the director's throat.
If it doesn't "work" it's for one reason: The director f***ed it up.
But here's another thing about directing (which we all know): anyone can claim to do it. It takes absolutely no experience or expertise. You actually can fake it!
And people who are directing usually get there for one reason: Because they can. That's all. Not because they passed any test, or showed any talent in particular, but simply because they've been able to get into the situation.
And here we are, with all our experience and craft and technical expertise, trying to explain the most basic things to them sometimes.
But other times, they actually do know what they're doing. I've worked with directors who could be excellent DP's if they chose to be. And if they want a 25mm, then who am I to argue, unless I think they're making a mistake? Why should I complain if they actually know their craft to that degree? I certainly know the craft to that degree when I'm directing -- I say what lens to use, so why shouldn't they?
I guess it's like any relationship and that it all boils down to one thing - trust.
And like any other kind of relationship, it's hard to find good ones! And when you do, they're worth hanging onto!
I was challenged on the last feature project I shot earlier this year by a director with a very specific idea of what he wanted. Several times in the past I have talked about this here. I was hired as director of photography of an independent film directed by a first time writer/director. I had a very hard time with many of the things he was asking me to do -- out of focus shots, "shakey cam," bumping the camera deliberately during a lock off establishing shot... He wanted a film that demonstrated the imperfections of people -- something that wasn't perfect. Behind the scenes of this film were some extraordinarily powerful Hollywood players. People I have looked up to, admired and studied for many years -- and people from whom praise of my work was very important to me. I had a different ideal for the film, and being more experienced than the director (and also being on the same page with the producer) I fought hard for my ideal. I argued when he asked for "odd" things -- saying that it wasn't appropriate here. In the end, looking at the film -- I was wrong. Playing the film straight was wrong. Being more experienced then the director didn't help me. HE had the proper idea for the film. We've got to remember that even though we are "Director's" of photography -- we really only are lighting cameramen. The DP title has evolved through political pressure (and respect for our abilities) over time. We're not involved in the development of the script, the shaping of the actor's, the orchestration of the score, or the editing -- all of which the director oversees and considerably shapes the film. We are only ONE part of the film. Albeit a very IMPORTANT part -- but who are we to tell the director he's wrong? Especially if we don't have a preexisting relationship with him and an understanding of how he works. What about director's like Ridley Scott or Spielberg who, as I understand, do ask for a 35 over here with the camera this high... And I'd WANT a director to give me his thoughts on how a scene should be lit -- what is he seeing? We many be looking at a situation COMPLETELY opposite. I'd rather tell him what I was thinking and make sure we both agree. If I light the scene and he looks at it two hours later... Not at all what he wanted, but we have no time -- so we shoot. Later on in editing -- it doesn't quite work... How many times has that happened? If you have a complete synergy with a director -- then things are great, but how often does that happen.
I know we've all worked with director's who didn't know what they were doing. They make big mistakes and things turn out bad -- but where do we draw the line? Who are we to decide whether a director is right or not? If you want to make those decisions -- then direct yourself, in my humble opinion.
The best world is when you and the director are working together to continually better each other's ideas and shape the film together -- but in the ideal, the director is there to direct everyone into their idea of the film. Theater is a writer's medium -- film is not.
Just my thoughts - as always, take them with a grain of salt...
> But would you say it infront of the crew, or talk to him privately before hand?
Personally? The relationship between the DP and Director is too vital to the entire workings of a set to have a stupid argument or degrade the DP in front of the crew. But there is a very fine line. Directing is a very hard job. You are not only constantly bombarded with situation after situation that if you do not solve, the production will fall apart (that's your job), but you are constantly challenged. Challenged by actors trying to push you -- trying to insert their own agenda -- challenged by a personality conflict between the make-up key and the 2nd AD that's slowing down the show... You don't need an outburst between the DP who is supposed to be your second in command, the liaison between you and the crew and you and the technical aspects of the film... I am a very hands-on director. I can't stand sitting by a friggin monitor, I am in there working with everyone. Taking a peak at the brush stroke the set painter is using, the lamp the decorator is putting on the table, the belt they're putting on the second actor in a scene, the quality of light and lens selection... If I wanted something specific that happened to fall under the DP, I'd always talk with him one on one. I would never bellow out before a take starts -- GIVE ME THE 1/2 WHITE PROMIST! That creates a conflict and undermines the DP... I would talk to him during the setup and make it one on one. If we had a conflict (I would certainly hope that a filter would not destroy a working relationship) I would have to question how important it was to me. If I was deadset (again as a director) then I'd have to do what it took to make sure he did what I asked. A disagreement over a filter or operation of a shot is more often than not indication of many deeper things going on -- and perhaps, like Shangara said, it not a collaboration that should happen.
On a recent commercial I did, the director wanted to operate a series of handheld shots. I quickly handed him the camera and stood right by him (as an AC for him) to make sure we were still both there working on the shot. It bothered me slightly, and I felt that the shots he did weren't quite what they could have been -- but in the end -- he was happy, he got what he wanted. I suggested another angle while he was operating and he went for it -- that's the right working relationship. Later on, for the final shot of the spot he had a very specific move scheduled that due to time constraints we had to change. He asked for something different that wasn't quite as dramatic -- a quick solution. I came up with a different idea that took a bit to sell him on, but in the end he saw where I was going and it was his call to use it. That's the way it should work.
Damn... I'm really rambling about this one... Guess I got my blood pumping with this one. All in all -- everyone works differently. I'm a DP now because I'm a director. Meaning I have always felt to be a good director you need to understand and have a level of proficiency for each position on the set. I started as an actor, worked for quite a while to gain proficiency, then moved to being a technician... I found a passion as a DP, in equal competition as a director, so I've settled comfortably here for a while, honing this craft... This could account for my bias toward the director's side -- but what if everyone felt that their idea was right?
Bear with me for a second more --
Working in theater, during my last year I had the opportunity to do two shows back to back as a Master Flyman. Both were five character shows, and both casts were filled with five extraordinarily talented actors, great scripts, great sets, great costumes, great lighting... One had a mediocre director, one had a great one. The first show was a demonstration of five shows in one. Each actor was doing his own thing (fantastically) but all of them weren't on the same page. They didn't have guidance. As a result, the show floundered. It lacked focus. The second show, was right on. A unified direction kept everyone on track and the difference the director made was considerable...
All in all -- someone's got to keep an eye on the big picture. We're just one piece of a much larger puzzle, that if made right, is truly a sum larger than it's parts.
Remember: You can always add the letters "U.P." (under protest) next to your name on the slate for a scene you're shooting against your better judgement.
-Gerry Williams
Hmm, another webpage
My own 2 cents :-
Ultimately the director is in charge, it's their film, if you don't like their way of working then don't work with them again, but do this job properly.
I seem to get on best with directors who have a strong visual sense, they know what they want, and rely on me to get it for them, if I can push it further in that direction then great!. We push each other further.
I have no problem with directors who want specific lenses, lights etc., as long as they know why they want them :-) and not just because they're fashionable.
I worked for 6 years with a well known stills photographer who directed commercials, he didn't light them and he rarely interfered, erm, suggested things :-). He knew that lighting for film was different to lighting for stills. On the other hand, he set the frame, his operator, and note that, HIS operator, knew what he wanted and framed the directors way.
As has already been pointed out I find the worst kind of director the one who always plays safe, who says he wants to be dynamic/adventurous and then insists on the most bland images possible.
Most important I want a director to respect that I know what it will look like on film, not what it looks like on the Video Assist, not what it looks like to the Eye, not what it looks like on Polaroid, but what it will look like after it's been shot on film and transferred to D1.
I had the pleasure of working on a film as an Assistant with Director Sidney Lumet in the fall of 1997. The has not been released and is called "Gloria" . Mr. Lumet made every single set - Lens, position and height. In addition where dolly should start and end and marks for the actor. I had a hard time keep up with his frantic but controlled pace. The DP was David Watkin which I think some members of the list know him personally. David never felt his toes were being stepped on because he came out of the British system of Lighting Cameraperson which made their relationship perfect. Once the shot was set by Sidney David would light the shot through the camera not questioning the purpose or particulars. Of course, Sidney Lumet has many years of experience so it was not necessary to question this and this also falls under the blanket of the British system as I understand it. As an Assistant it was a dream and a real workout. I knew exactly what was going because Sidney was exact with his decisions and never changed them!! So there's my 2 cents.
Brian Fass
>Remember: You can always add the letters "U.P." (under protest) next to your name >on the slate for a scene you're shooting against your better judgement.
Has anyone done this and lived to tell the tale? I mean as a DP and not as a matchstick seller!
There's a good tale of this from Arthur Penn (re Peverell Marley, ASC) in the old book "The Film Director as Superstar" by Joe Gelmis, circa 1971. Penn (new to film, from a TV background) was directing "The Left-Handed Gun" (1958?) and would ask for, say, a two-shot. Marley would swing his putter and say dismissively to his crew "He wants a two-shot. Give him a two-shot." Penn insisted on using an Arri as a second camera, which Marley disliked, and all his slates stated that the second camera was unlit. Back in those days, Jack Warner was watching dailies... Lots of the Arri footage was used...
OK, it's not that good a story...
Jeff "but I typed it" Kreines
>Has anyone done this and lived to tell the tale? I mean as a DP and not as a >matchstick seller!
Unfortunately, I have had to resort to it on rare occasions. More often I would quietly have the Script Supervisor put a note into the script notes. I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
A number of times, sometimes you don't work with that director again, sometimes you DO work for that producer again, sometimes you get a call from the director saying "ha! it worked", rarely, you get a call from the director saying "you were right".
At the moment that tray of matches is looking very attractive
OK, Jay, let me try again (although Caleb has already beaten me to it). I don't think anyone will disagree that it's the director's film, though to be pedantic I always call it the writer's film, but if you are hired as a "DIRECTOR" of photography then that word must have some meaning, surely.
There are the rare times when you are on the same wavelength as the director that when they say "time for the promist" or "let's do this hand held" you know exactly what he means because you have the same idea and then there's no objection - and you've talked about the look beforehand, anyway. The difference is in how they ask!
>As a director of photography our job is to photograph the project according to the >director's vision. The director IS the boss. If he/she decides for promists in a scene... >That's what's gonna happen.
The director only thinks he's the boss because you let him! I think you have equal amounts to loose. Your careers and your self respect. He may earn more but then I say he probably deserves it. But your ass is just as much on the line - probably more so as when things go wrong YOU will be the most likely scapegoat!
>what a director wants) the director is my boss. My job is to serve his/her vision of the >film -- not my own agenda. My own agenda must fall under his.
That's why I said you must be prepared to walk, meaning if your agendas differ -however, easier said then done. I have no problem with serving the director's vision, as a matter of fact I relish that, although it's much more satisfying to serve the writer's vision, but when a director says let's have a 12k thru the window and a smidgen of fill here and highlight that over there and ...you get the picture. What do you do then? Who has the unnecessary agenda and counter productive at that?
Because it's a very short step from saying "next setup, the 35, over there looking this way" to doing your job "badly" and then blaming you. Because, in my opinion, any director that rides the dolly during a shot or sets your stop for you is doing his job badly. And that can't be good for any film. If the director wants to ride a dolly during a rehearsal that's cool as long as he gives time for focus marks and for the Camera Op to rehears too. But during a take? Nah...
I think any director worth their salt will turn people's creativity on and not depress it. There's nothing that turns people off then someone encroaching on their territory. And remember even the most humble spark is a creative.
And who is this Speilberg guy I keep hearing about? Kaminski, Toland, Zsigmond, Storaro, yes, but who ever heard of Speilberg? - and a foreign sounding name if I ever heard one. Tell him he's got to change his name if he wants to make it in this biz!
Shangara Singh
London Based DoP/Lighting Cameraman
>Before I retire I would love to work with a director who knew his job, had a good >sense of humour and was secure enough to change his thinking when something >better was suggested. I thought I was the only one
Its surprising how many times I work with directors who are complete ignorants about cinematic language. Most of the time they are very good at directing actors (and even that sometimes is questionable) and all they demand is to make a caption of the scene the actors perform. It has to be as simple as possible without any interference with the actors. So the actors are completely free and can at every moment decide to change completely the rythm of their movements, change direction etc. And don't try to even miss a take, even if the grip was not prepared to having to running talent instead of a walking one as during the rehearsal. But they don't use any filmlanguage, and they leave everything in the operator's hands. For my work it is very exiting because I have a lot of artistic input and I can propose a lot of shots to the director. But I am not sure it is always a good thing for the film. When I propose shots, I make them in function of my interpretation of the script and even after talking with the director about the scene, I don't have the same vision as the director who follows the project from beginning to end. Of course afterward the editors will cut the film into any rythm provided we made different shots in a scene. But I think that the rythm of a film starts in the preparation where the director makes his shot list and decide how every scene connects to another and how all the shots succeed one to another. And as Michael pointed out: " While a Director could most certainly hire a strong DP and a strong Editor, completely defer to them and have a resonable shot of coming away with a film that works as the Director expects, the odds are much higher if the Director understands the tools of those disciplines. Photography, and how to use it to communicate effectively to the audience is an essential skill to a Director, not merely the domain of the DP." But every film is for me a way of learning this very subtle language and I hope to assist a lot of directors for a very long time
Chris Renson
Sponsored by :-
aces.png
ACES Central
24-7 Drama
abelcine.png
arri.png
bmd.png
BandH.jpg
camalot.png
Cam-A-Lot
cooke.png
Cooke Optics
dedo.png
dolby.png
dsc.png
DSC Labs
eos-c.png
Canon Cinema EOS
fjs.png
fsi.png
Flanders Scientific
k5600001.png
K5600 Lighting
FUJINON.jpg
LVR.png
LVR
Lowing.gif
Lowing Light & Grip
Rosco.jpeg
Schneider.jpg
Schneider Optics
smallg.png
Small Giant
lindseyo.jpg
Lindsey Optics
cinealta.png
TCS.png
Tiffen.png
Varicam.png
Panasonic Varicam
ZGC.png
VMI.png
© copyright CML - Cinematography Mailing List all rights reserved