Wow, this looks like crap too!

Dominic Case · February 18, 2005

Sorry, stuffed up the pictures. I'll try and do it properly another time.

Phil Rhodes · February 18, 2005

Hi,

Thanks for the comment.

> Maybe a rush job on telecine.

Possibly, but more likely lack of photographic talent.

> Maybe my monitor.

Quite possibly. I've been playing with them here and I have the option to view Photoshop on my (reasonably calibrated) video monitor - it makes a huge difference.

> All looks a bit soft

Yes, don't know why, the fullscale stuff looks like that too. The chain is s16-spirit-digibeta-DV, so it should look reasonably good. It's entirely possible that it's just all out of focus.

> but she seems to have more shiny highlights on her face in the close-up than in the two-shot.

"Don't worry about a stylist, I can deal with that."

"Are you sure?"

"Yes."

> And why does the lighting go completely flat for the kiss?

Because I am crap. No seriously. Constantly fighting him shadowing her.

Phil

Jason Rodriguez · February 18, 2005

Hey Phil

Like everybody else, I don't think it looks THAT bad.

What really seems like happend is that you went to telecine and got that really flat "dailies" look, you know, basically looks like somebody did a one-light, and overall it's pretty conservative, not a scene-to-scene correction with power windows, etc.

Now I don't know about the "kissing scene", but I did do a slight adjustment, like Dominic here, on the first scene, blowing out the highlights a little more and crushing the shadows a bit using a curves adjustment in Photoshop. Also taking out that overall red tone too using color-balance.

The Point is, shooting flat isn't necessarily a bad thing, what is bad is if you shoot flat and then transfer flat when you were wanting a more high-con look. And also I'm sure you discovered, and many other more experienced people that me have mentioned here on this thread, shooting "flat" doesn't necessarily mean shooting low-con and then trying to crank up the look in post-that can cause problems as well if the contrast isn't inherently in the scene.

Okay, I'll shut up now :)

Sam Wells · February 18, 2005

. Actually it looks hugely better in the digital stills I took, give or take the overexposed highlights, which I guess isn't entirely unsurprising given my background.Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Given that, it does.

I would bet you could get there in TK. Pull out magenta from what you had before.

The yellow touch in the still is more Florida (you gotta watch skin tones, that thin line between warmth and jaundice). A good reference.

But you did say CSI, right ? Big difference from Mike Leigh !

-Sam

Nate Downes · February 19, 2005

If you want to feel better, I'll post some shots I did that I'm less than thrilled with.

Phil Rhodes · February 19, 2005

H,

I'm sure we've all done stuff we're unimpressed by.

Still, if nothing else this has allowed me to discover that all ths rot about film just inherently looking better than video isn't necessarily, or even often, true. I try to shoot film, it comes out looking awful. Film people try to shoot video, it comes out looking awful. Whatever. It isn't something I'm going to pursue doing much more of, I think. Better video cameras, yes. Film, you can keep. A terminally unrewarding experience (And God, is it a pain to work with.)

The thing that pisses me off about this is that to be as a video cameraman, I'm required to know all of that job, and all of the film cameraman's job too, just to be taken seriously, when the reverse is not true.

Phil

Jonathan Spear · February 19, 2005

H,

I'm sure we've all done stuff we're unimpressed by.

Still, if nothing else this has allowed me to discover that all ths rot about film just inherently looking better than video isn't necessarily, or even often, true. I try to shoot film, it comes out looking awful. Film people try to shoot video, it comes out looking awful. Whatever. It isn't something I'm going to pursue doing much more of, I think. Better video cameras, yes. Film, you can keep. A terminally unrewarding experience (And God, is it a pain to work with.)

The thing that pisses me off about this is that to be as a video cameraman, I'm required to know all of that job, and all of the film cameraman's job too, just to be taken seriously, when the reverse is not true.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

$0.02...

Sure, that's one way to look at things. Here's another...

1) You get to shoot video.

2) You get to shoot film.

3) You work on "real" sets with real talent and get to use "real" equipment and lights.

4) You probably have some friends and contacts in the industry.

5) You have experience under your belt. You know the answers to questions I don't even know how to ask yet...

Lighten up man! Most of us newbies here would give a lot to be able to know so much about video and film and have as much experience as you do.

If life is so profound and tragic for you (a gift, not a curse) why not give screenwriting a shot? I'd rather watch a movie written by someone who truly feels life and human nature than watch something shot by someone who's head and heart seem to be elsewhere.

I realize I don't know you personaly, but the majority of your posts give off a general feeling of someone who just doesn't seem to be stimulated and/or satisfied enough with their current line of work.

Maybe trying something new like screenwriting will rekindle that passion for filmmaking which may have diminished over the years due to the way the industry has (mis)treated you.

or maybe a fresh apporoach to your work and this industry in general?

(and yes phil, i think i actually do know what i'm talking about because from personal experience i know that being an "untreated" pessimist can be a 24/7/365/yr job and there's no greater crime in this biz than to sell yourself short, not believe in yourself -- then get work on professional sets. it's just not fair. plain and simple. if you don't like your job, let someone else have it. some of us are literaly going through hell right now to get to where you are today...don't forget that. metaphorically speaking, it's time to pull that ND filter off your eyes.)

-Jon

Phil Rhodes · February 19, 2005

Hi,

> 1) You get to shoot video.

Most of the video I shoot is off-the-shoulder documentary, nothing to be proud of. Actually it's very hard, in fact often so hard that you simply can't make most of it look nice, so not only do you end up slaving away producing crap, your hard work isn't even recognisable. I'm sure in places where the sun shines and you have the opportunity to make it look like something other than a bad amateur snapshot it's much more fun.

> 2) You get to shoot film.

Only when people are good enough to donate most of the expensive bits, and that's not going to happen again.

> 3) You work on "real" sets with real talent and get to use "real"

> equipment and lights.

I do? Wow, it must have happened in my sleep!

> 4) You probably have some friends and contacts in the industry.

What industry?

> 5) You have experience under your belt.

Clearly not enough.

> being an "untreated" pessimist can be a 24/7/365/yr job

Yes, it's much more rewarding than camerawork!

> if you don't like your job, let someone else have it. some of us are

> literaly going through hell right now to get to where you are today

Oh, I see, you think I've got some incredibly attractive position, right, right... try it. You're going through hell to get into the US film industry, where you get to work at the highest professional standards with the best people and equipment. In the UK you work much harder for a smaller chance of a lesser reward.

Phil

Edited February 19, 2005 by Phil Rhodes

Jonathan Spear · February 20, 2005

Hey man I'd hire you in a heart beat.

Fancy a trip to Seattle, Wa?

(cute girls, good coffee, great beer, great weather....)

? :D

Laurent Andrieux · February 20, 2005

You could also have made a shade effect like venitian shades with a mama with chaterton tape stripes in front of the projector doing the sun (I would have used the 1200 for this, what power tungsten did you use for it ?). It would have given a nicer shade onthe wall in the bg in the wide shot as well as on cu's

Edited February 20, 2005 by laurent.a

Phil Rhodes · February 20, 2005

Hi,

I thought of that, but I think it's been done very well so many times that me doing it badly would just have seemed cheap.

I had a set of Arrilites (a 1K, a 650 and a 350) which are doing the sun, and a 1.2K HMI (bounced fill.) Also a couple of blondes, but they were too dispersed and unfocused to do much for the sunlight, and I didn't use them.

Phil