Alex Haspel Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 hi. these are uncorrected stills off the first week... we shot with an arri16bl, equipped with zeiss high speed primes (12, 16, 25 and 85mm) and follow focus (which proved to be quite tricky with this camera) on 7279 stock <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> any form of constructive critisism (or praise :) ) is highly welcome ! thanks in advance, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Frank Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) I am not a huge fan of the blown out hot spot in the kitchen shot, but other than that I think they are great. I especially love the shots with the flashlight what type light were you using? I also really like the first shot. Edited February 17, 2006 by Matt Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaan Shenberger Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 (edited) the images from the kitchen, if printed down 2 or so stops worth would feel very remniscent of benoit delhomme's work for "what time is it there?" and "cyclo" (uncorrected practical fluorescents, banal messy art direction, chairoscuro lighting on face). by looking at these stills, i feel like your cinematography is more about movement of light/shadow and subject rather than composition, an approach that is underused in my opinion. i really like it all. i hope you post stills from the final. Edited February 17, 2006 by jaan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted February 17, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2006 Overall nice mood. What's going on in the kitchen clips with the flourescent practical camera left of the actress' head? As close as I can tell the actress hasn't moved (successive frames?) but the practical is changing color and intensity. If this were a clip from a gazillion dollar production I'd say there's actually an intelligent light with CMY color mixing programmed to change color and intensity up in that cabinet. If not, then a flourescent with a bad ballast in it causing a flicker. Edmond, OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Metzger Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Strange that you shot with wonderful superspeed primes, and nothing was in focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 I've wondered about a follow focus for the 16bl -- wouldn't the primes be set so far back within the blimp housing that it would be near impossible to set one up? Did you have a matte box attached -- and might you have a picture of the setup you used? I've got a 16bl myself, which is why i'm so interested Also, you just letterboxed the 4x3 neg, right? how did you frame for that, did you just eyeball it or did you have markings on the ground glass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) I am not a huge fan of the blown out hot spot in the kitchen shot, but other than that I think they are great. I especially love the shots with the flashlight what type light were you using? I also really like the first shot. thank you! the hot spot.. well, of course, things like that are a matter of opinion, i'd say. my general approach to this project was kind of "what the hell, i'm young, i want to learn something, and this is a non-commercial project without a producer in my neck, so i'll just go and see how far i can go..." there were some shots where i leaned out of the window a bit too much, but my phylosophy is to rather risk something and have 80% interesting shots and 20% fu**ed up shots, than to come home with 100% of ok but boring safety shots. the flashlight... it was a recharchable battery powered consumer flashlight... the props people organized it, but forgot the charger :) the images from the kitchen, if printed down 2 or so stops worth would feel very remniscent of benoit delhomme's work for "what time is it there?" and "cyclo" (uncorrected practical fluorescents, banal messy art direction, chairoscuro lighting on face). by looking at these stills, i feel like your cinematography is more about movement of light/shadow and subject rather than composition, an approach that is underused in my opinion. i really like it all. i hope you post stills from the final. so you're saying i can't compose???!!! ARR!! just joking. but you are on the right path, yes.. this project has extrmely few camera movement and is visually a rather "quiet" one. so, thank you! and yes, i'll post a trailer or something as soon as i get one. delhomme? ... dont know of those two films you named, but i'll surely check at my videothek... Overall nice mood. What's going on in the kitchen clips with the flourescent practical camera left of the actress' head? As close as I can tell the actress hasn't moved (successive frames?) but the practical is changing color and intensity. If this were a clip from a gazillion dollar production I'd say there's actually an intelligent light with CMY color mixing programmed to change color and intensity up in that cabinet. If not, then a flourescent with a bad ballast in it causing a flicker. Edmond, OK yes, you're absolutely right, it is an intelligent light with CMY color mixing programmed to change color and intensity up in that cabinet. no, your're not. sorry, i'm making stupid jokes again. i don't even know what that thing you described is... :) .. it's just a flouro with a bad starter. but i t looked really cool and had the wierdest colors, that's why i put those stills in there too. unfortunately i forgot to capture the purple phase, which absolutely looked the yuckiest, i loved it. Strange that you shot with wonderful superspeed primes, and nothing was in focus. consider that this is only a cropped 4:3 pal (720x576) telecine... I've wondered about a follow focus for the 16bl -- wouldn't the primes be set so far back within the blimp housing that it would be near impossible to set one up? Did you have a matte box attached -- and might you have a picture of the setup you used? I've got a 16bl myself, which is why i'm so interested Also, you just letterboxed the 4x3 neg, right? how did you frame for that, did you just eyeball it or did you have markings on the ground glass? we didn't use a blimp. and as for the follow focus.. i should get some set photos on monday, so then i can post some pics of the setup for you in here. yeah, super16 was finacially no option unfortunately, since we got the 16bl for free... so we letterboxed the 4:3 neg, and yes, we had markings on the groundglass, with halftransparent tape. Edited February 18, 2006 by haspel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted February 18, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted February 18, 2006 "yes, you're absolutely right, it is an intelligent light with CMY color mixing programmed to change color and intensity up in that cabinet. no, your're not. sorry, i'm making stupid jokes again. i don't even know what that thing you described is... Alex" Many modern theatrical light fixtures use three variable density cyan, magenta, and yellow filters in the light path. They can create just about any color by mixing the amount of C,M,Y in real time. Most, but not all, use a lamp similar to an HMI. "Chicago" used a lot of this technology for the fantasy/dance scenes. Take a look at www.highend.com to see what I'm talking about, in particular Studio Beams, S. Spot CMY's, X-Spots, Color Pros, and Cyberlights. Edmond, OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 the images from the kitchen, if printed down 2 or so stops worth would feel very remniscent of benoit delhomme's work for "what time is it there?" and "cyclo" (uncorrected practical fluorescents, banal messy art direction, chairoscuro lighting on face). by looking at these stills, i feel like your cinematography is more about movement of light/shadow and subject rather than composition, an approach that is underused in my opinion. i really like it all. i hope you post stills from the final. I don't think there's 2 stops room to go on her face; that would still leave the left side of the kitchen kind of hot but we wouldn't see her well. (Power Windows could work here !!) Oh well he took bold chances, most paid off. I have no problem at all composition wise - it's frames from a movie not a slideshow. (That said, I don't disagree with Jaan). PS I'm not so sure the art direction in "Cyclo" is quite as messy as it seems; I think Tran Anh Hung is a pretty deliberate guy..... -Sam You've got some phase issues with the fluoros -- How does that look in motion ? (Did you want the pulsing ?) -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 I don't think there's 2 stops room to go on her face; that would still leave the left side of the kitchen kind of hot but we wouldn't see her well. (Power Windows could work here !!) Oh well he took bold chances, most paid off. I have no problem at all composition wise - it's frames from a movie not a slideshow. (That said, I don't disagree with Jaan). PS I'm not so sure the art direction in "Cyclo" is quite as messy as it seems; I think Tran Anh Hung is a pretty deliberate guy..... -Sam You've got some phase issues with the fluoros -- How does that look in motion ? (Did you want the pulsing ?) -Sam well, the one with the bad starter was obviously going on and off in irregular intervalls, and the other one was totally flickerfree with 25fps (50hz power over here). the close up of the cigarette was shot with 36fps, and as i expected there was some pulsing from the intact flouro as well. but i didnt mind, since it's the opening shot and therefore prepares the audience for some artsy-fartsy stuff theyre going to see.... and, what is power windows? oh, and there was no art direction in the kitchen, it basically looked liked this. the flat's owners even cleaned up a bit as we arrived :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Frank Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 What was your motivation to shoot 7279 instead of 7218? Did you want more grain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 What was your motivation to shoot 7279 instead of 7218? Did you want more grain? no, i would have prefered 7218 too. It was a financially motivated decision. we had the chance to buy 7279 that expired in november quite cheap. i overexposed half a stop, for safety, and i think it turned out fine grain wise. i expected it to be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Vialet Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 thanks for posting the stills haspel! I like em...especially the first one and the flashlight close-up. I'm also shooting an upcoming film on 7279 and the BL. But the producers can only afford the 10 to 1 Angeneuix zoom...even though i pushed for Zeiss. But I've never shot on 7279 and I'm planning on doing some underexposure in a fairly high-contrast interior. I wanted some advice (not to take much attention away from your original post) on shooting this stock. The ninth still...the one before the cigarette CU...the key on her face seems to be significantly underexposed...i wanted to know how many stops that light was underexposed and any other interesting lighting/exposure specs on the other stills... sorry if this was a long post but I'm really curious! congrats again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 (edited) The ninth still...the one before the cigarette CU...the key on her face seems to be significantly underexposed...i wanted to know how many stops that light was underexposed thanks for the kind words, richard. you mean this one, right? it's the final framing of a handheld shot beginning with this: the light on her face is all from the flashlight beiing reflected off the wall.... my working aperature was 2 and the light meter showed something around 0,5 or 0,7 on her face, if my memory aint playing tricks with me..... and as for the angieneux zoom... it's been some time that i shot with it, but i remember this thing beeing extremely soft an rather contrastless... this of course depends on the story you want to tell (you might want that look), but my advice would be to avoid using it fully open... i hope i could help, if you got any other questions, feel free to ask.. greetings and the best of luck, Edited February 18, 2006 by haspel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted February 18, 2006 Author Share Posted February 18, 2006 and the first one... the working aperature was also 2, and all the light is coming from the practicals you see within the frame. the key on her face's right side was 2,0 1/2 since i tried to overexpose half a stop troughout. the rounder lamp in the background was about 1,4 or 2 on the wall right next to it, but as you can see with quite fast falloff. the only fill "used" is the lighter in the moment the cigarette is lit. that's what i love about low-light shooting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Steelberg ASC Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Nice beautiful texture throughout. Let us know when it's finished. I'd love to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 and, what is power windows? A tool on the Davinci color corrector (Pogle has something similar) that lets you isolate an area and grade it. Looking again at the grabs - some of that may not be recoverable - it's kind of nuclear.... -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) I've wondered about a follow focus for the 16bl -- wouldn't the primes be set so far back within the blimp housing that it would be near impossible to set one up? Did you have a matte box attached -- and might you have a picture of the setup you used? I've got a 16bl myself, which is why i'm so interested it was a matter of millimeters, but the cogwheel fully fitted on the teeth of the prime... and we had a distance plate, since the lensmount on the bl is so low... you can see it here. (more or less) hope i could help... oh, and if you do something like this, remember to get a GOOD, BIG head!! the center of gravity of the camera was really high with that construction, so when panning up or down it almost panned away if wasnt holding hard against this. but this could be counterbalanced perfectly with the hardest spring (if it's called like that in english) on the big sachtler head. Edited February 20, 2006 by haspel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Haspel Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 (edited) oh, and no, we didnt use a matte box. there was no space left, because (as you can see in the first picture) the follow focus was standing out far more that all of our lenses. and there is also one more thing to mind with the 16bl and follow focus: the bajonett is bedded in rubber. (most likely for noise reasons) so when pulling focus to infinity you have to stop right before you hit the pint where te ring on the lens stops moving, because the toothwheel will pull the lens down and your image will make a jump... sounds crazy, but it really is a problem out of many more when shooting with a 16bl Edited February 20, 2006 by haspel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Shoop Posted August 9, 2010 Share Posted August 9, 2010 Strange that you shot with wonderful superspeed primes, and nothing was in focus. LOL. i laughed for like a min on that one. sorry for the bump, but i'm researching low light type of stuff.. good post though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now