Jump to content

Party like it's 1929


Phil Rhodes

Recommended Posts

Why are you always so constantly negative about yourself and your oppurtunities, Phil? I don't understand it- you can clearly see from your work here that you have the required talent and technical understanding, so why the overbearing pessimism?

 

I bet if your attitude was anywhere near the quality of your work, your success would be snowballing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Well, I'm sure I have several ASC members circa 1929 revolving in their graves at high speed. The guys I shot this for would probably have been happy with more or less anything that was black and white, so it doesn't really matter anyway.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Phil, cool pics!

 

I notice some grad work in those frames. Are you using actual grad filters or a digital comp?

 

I'd guess digitial since the leaves of the plant in the top right corner of the Talking Picture look overexposed, but are not "255-white". But of course, I could be wrong... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

Yes, most of it has a digitally-applied vignette. I generally hate to bring overexposed hilights down like that, but I don't actually own any grads - £120 each and you need at least three - so I'll probably fiddle with it again.

 

Edit: I'm pleased enough with this one to keep the colour in it, but really I have no idea if this is genuinely any good or if I'm just self-aggrandising.

 

colour.jpg

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Great stuff. Pretty good simulation of that period -- the vignetting was very common. And they were using Cooper-Hewitt lamps in the Silent Era, sort of blue-green fluorescent tube discharge lamps. Too noisy for sound work, as were arcs early on, so they switched to tungsten.

 

The actors' faces are a bit "modern" though...

 

In the moving image, did you add some pulsing or grain artifacts?

 

One of the harder things to simulate in DV would be the low depth of field, since most 35mm movies back then would have used a 50mm at T/2.1 for a lot of the work, occasionally a 35mm for wide shots and a 75mm for close-ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

> The actors' faces are a bit "modern" though...

 

Yeah, I got what I was given there. The facial closeups are just stuff I managed to shoot for my own amusement, they won't be used. I thought the Talking Picture guy looked all right.

 

> In the moving image, did you add some pulsing or grain artifacts?

 

I'd be adding pulsing right now if I wasn't typing. I'm going to leave grain alone - I might crunch up the blacks a bit, but it's soft enough already. I can try, I guess - actually, since it's being played back from hard disk, there's nothing stopping me blowing it up to a higher resolution - say 1K - and imposing grain at that resolution, which will be more realistic. I'll have to chase up what projector we're liable to get.

 

Depth of field I'm probably stuck with. It's only a half-inch chip.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...