Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/18/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Creative problem solving is only one aspect of being an artist and dealing with small budgets that can be inadequate to achieve a particular vision or make it near impossible to tell certain types of stories is frustrating for a filmmaker. Yes, that describes the majority of filmmaking but many people in love of cinema dream of making their own "8 1/2" or "Doctor Strangelove" or "Seven Samurai" or "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Citizen Kane", or any number of stories that need a certain budget to achieve a certain scale and scope. I'm not sure why this is even being debated -- is it so hard to imagine dreaming of doing ambitious works of art? Not wanting to settle for just making little films about little subjects that can be shot cheaply?
  2. 2 points
    I mean, I can't afford a 4k Alexa... even the Alexa XT's which are only 3.8k, are still way out of my price range. I mean even a Red Dragon package is around $14 - $18k and you're dealing with something that WILL FAIL at one point during your ownership. Red's are notorious for software glitches and they charge a fortune to service them. So then you talk about Sony, but again the price range is astronomical for a true cinema look like an F65 or Venice with all the bells and whistles. Reality is, owning a true digital cinema camera that you can garnish gigs from, is unfortunately cost prohibitive, unless you're using the equipment every day and have enough connections to have consistent work. So then you've got the other aspect which is, everyone shoots digital, so what separates your production from the guy's film that shows before or after yours at the film festival? Sure, you can treat digital to look more filmic, but it never will look like film. How much attention does your production get when you say "shot on Alexa" vs "shot on film". Most people will stop and read an article on why you're using archaic technology to make your movie, but an article about shooting like everyone else, what interest is that? When digital was first coming around, this was the opposite, everyone wanted to read about the digital shoots. However, now that the roles are reversed, film has become the stand-out choice for indy filmmakers to define their production. The mandatory discipline that's built into shooting on film, is in essence the saving grace of the format. Thus, the results are generally better for less production time. You COULD be disciplined like that with digital, but when the shooting time is endless, EVERYONE becomes lazy. Plus, in today's world, when actors know you're shooting film, they step up to the challenge because they know it's special. Back to the results part of shooting on film, it does make a difference. Where it may be less apparent on bigger productions, on smaller one's, I've physically seen the difference first hand and it's pretty amazing if you actually did an A/B comparison. Finally, digital is not just one's and zero's. It's an encoded media format which will fall out of date very fast. As technology moves forward, we find ourselves at a precipice where in 10 - 20 years, the files we have today will not be playable on modern hardware. So now you're having to keep old hardware around to playback your files, which again are stuck at whatever resolution you shot them on initially. Plus, can you afford to store 20tb for 20 years? No spinning disk or SSD will last that long, so there goes all those raw file drives. Now you're going to back them up onto LTO tape, which is great, but in 20 years the current LTO format will be long gone as biometric tech takes over. So again, how will you ever watch your final production without A LOT of money being put into properly archiving every few years to a new medium and transcoding to newer codec's? The studio's have rated the cost of doing this archiving at several thousand dollars per month, per show. Where camera negative is completely agnostic to these issues. It can sit on a shelf in your closet for 50 years without fading. It can sit in a cool vault for 100 years without any damage. If you want to re-edit, simply re-scan the scenes you need and re-conform your cut. Recording back to film today is cheaper than it's ever been, with costs as low as $100/minute for 2k. So now you can store a print along with your negative in a vault for what, few hundred bux a year. I understand digital, I think it's great technology for television, streaming/web and making videos for fun. I don't understand digital for anything that has any long-term integral value.
  3. 2 points
    Usually the editor works with, collaborates with, the director, just like the cinematographer works with the director. Unless the director is a trained editor, their "director's cut" is the work of the editor working the actual machine and the director supervising that editor to deliver what both of them agree should be the final edited form. A "director's cut" is usually not a situation where the director goes off and independently cuts the project without an editor. Sometimes if the director is busy during production while dailies are coming in, they will let the editor do a rough assembly and then a first pass without too much supervision, but then once post-production begins, the director comes and works closely with the editor to create their preferred cut. If this is for a television show, the director is given a certain amount of time to create their director's cut after the editor's cut, which then gets delivered to the showrunner / producer for their notes. After that, the network or studio will probably want some changes for the final released or broadcast cut.
  4. 1 point
    I guess it would need to be a solid poured floor rather then sheets, maybe some kind of epoxy that could be polished. It might be more practical to use the sheets and paint out the seams in post.
  5. 1 point
    Got shortlisted for Film Craft - Best Cinematography in advertising at the Kinsale Shark Awards for ESB !!! There are two sections, Irish and International, and ESB is the only ad in the Irish section that got shortlisted in Cinematography!!! :) https://kinsalesharks.awardsengine.com/shortlist/film-craft
  6. 1 point
    Just wanted to let you guys know we just sent in the PO and deposit for the 6.5k ScanStation upgrade. Gamma Ray Digital will have this installed in about 6 weeks.. Pricing for resolutions above 5k is TBD - our 2k-5k pricing will be the same, but we need to run some tests first to see what we're dealing with in terms of file sizes and speeds before we finalize on 6k pricing BTW, @Scott Pickering: I believe the max native film frame resolution will now be 5k, for Super 8. Currently it's about 4k for the 5.1k sensor.
  7. 1 point
    A lot of new editors focus on matching the action exactly when finding a cut point. But, from my experience watching what really good editors do, the most important thing is to make the cut at the moment new information needs to be revealed. And when this is done well, exact matching of motion is no longer really required for a good edit. The most important thing, I think, is to convince the audience that they are discovering the story, on their own. But, in reality, the editor is directing them every bit of the way...
  8. 1 point
    I've owned and shot with all of these cameras and still have a Bolex EBM and of course Aaton XTR today. Here are my thoughts on this subject. First and foremost, if you're doing fashion stuff, you'll want to put the camera in odd places to get unique angles most likely. One thing that nobody really talks about is the lack of a movable viewfinder on the Bolex or S/M. This means your face has to be at the back of the camera to check the shot. No video tap, no monitor to check framing, nothing. This is a HUGE inconvenience and it can be very costly because time is money and sometimes, that magic moment happens and if you're not able to get it because you need to put the camera somewhere where you can't be behind it and look straight down the viewfinder, you're in trouble. Second, lens mount is a big deal. I would say the Bolex C mount is the most versatile mount on the market. You can convert it to PL, Nikon, Arri B and many others, with adaptors that aren't too much money. Third, The Bolex also has a few features like being able to rewind for effects and hand crank if need be. The SBM and EBM can also run 400ft magazines, which is super nice to have and batteries are readily available. The Bolex cameras are NOT mirrored reflex, so the image is pretty dark compared to the newer cameras, which adds to the annoyance of having to look through the viewfinder from the back. Fourth, where I do like the S/M, I do think it's days are numbered. Mechanically, they are great cameras. However, they are a bit heavy and the motor and battery system is less than elegant. I got one for free (without glass) and wound up selling it because I knew I'd never use it. I shot with an Arri M once and it was a cool experience, but the Arri BL was a better camera because it was quiet and had a rotating viewfinder, which means you can put the camera on your shoulder vs holding it in front of your face. Where it's true, Arri (and Bolex) do have shoulder mount adaptors, they are hard to find these days. I would NEVER spend money on converting a camera to Super 16, you're literally throwing money out the window. The Bolex and early Arri cameras, do need quite a bit of work to convert to Super 16, it's not an easy process. So it's expensive AND because they were made for standard 16, all of the roller's, sprockets and even the gate, have surfaces that touch the image where it's not suppose to. With the Bolex, you can swap nearly all of them out, but not with the S/M. So there is a higher likelihood you'll get scratches in that area. The Aaton LTR is a first generation camera. I would steer clear myself having owned one. Where it's super lightweight, the cameras are getting super old and things like the drive belts for the magazines are no longer being made. So it becomes a huge problem over a short period of time if you aren't careful. Plus, LTR parts specifically are nearly impossible to find. They didn't make as many LTR's as XTR's, so where the XTR part supply does exist, getting LTR parts is more about finding a dead camera and yanking parts off it. From experience, they are very fragile compared to the Arri's, so screws come loose very easily and things bend/break much easier. I do think the LTR creates a more stable image than the Arri counterparts and I love the design (I'm a die hard Aaton guy), but I wouldn't recommend one to a newbie. I think they're good for experienced people who aren't going to use them very much. I struggle to keep my last generation XTR Prod in one piece. I personally wouldn't get near a multi-thousand dollar Arri S/M or Bolex. I've spent around $500 on BOTH of my Bolex and S/M. I think for that price it's worth the "investment", but for the pricing you're posting, no way. If you're doing hand held fun stuff, a very basic standard REX-5 H16 Reflex Bolex will do you fine. You can get them for peanuts, find a decent C mount lens and you're in business. They're wind-up, but they're cheap, easy to use and create great images if in good shape. Once you graduate from the Bolex, you can step up to an Aaton XTR Plus or Prod, for $8k lol 😛 (the prices are crazy these days) and learn what it's like to work a real camera. But lenses will kill you. Mod's will kill you. I mean everything kills you on the more expensive cameras. So you either go super cheap like the Rex-5 Bolex, or you throw everything at it and buy a modern real sync sound camera.
  9. 1 point
    Great movie very nicely shot by Lawrence Sher, ASC. A performance of a lifetime from Joaquin. He simply will win Oscar for it, there is no other option. Film is uncomfortable, very angst-ridden and full of impending doom and dread. Not necessarily a pleasant watch, but engaging and very well made. It's a character piece rather than an action movie. I have to be honest, I am a little worried in these strange times what it might motivate in the disenfranchised young (mostly) males. There was a Q&A after film with director Todd Phillips and a woman raised this very question. He kind of did what all us filmmakers do, and that is to say it's not up to us to filter, shy away from violence or not show mental illness, we can only ask questions, yada yadda etc. And normally I would agree with him, but like I said, I can't but help share that woman's fears, slightly. Seen by someone removed from good human interactions, perhaps with some confidence issues or mental problems, it could inspire the wrong thing. It is a powerful film that doesn't necessarily condemn it. First time I've ever felt that we as filmmakers actually do have a responsibility. Or maybe I'm just getting older. Nevertheless, a very powerful movie. It feels a little bit like it will create debate like Fight Club did 20 years ago.
  10. 1 point
    Old lenses shot wide-open on a larger format seems the best approach, which probably means a digital full-frame camera. Next would be f/1.3 lenses wide-open on 35mm film. There are even those Hawk f/1 lenses.
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    An example of the Helios 58mm on a full-frame camera:
  13. 1 point
    I shot this little test on expired 5230 and pushed it one. It was all with available lights. I shot it on bl 4s with a Cooke 20-100 wide open. I shot it flat 1:85. I overexposed it so it printed in low 40's. The footage was timed photochemically to my grey chart and the timed lo con print was scanned at 4k on Scanity at Fotokem.
  14. 1 point
    Mann has often mentioned that she loves to use old, damaged lenses. She scours market stalls for just the right sort of damage - peeling coatings, fungus, cocked elements etc. The vignetting and corner softness is either from using a lens that doesn't quite cover the format, or from an old Petzval or Rapid Rectilinear style lens (or both). Or if particular lens elements are shifted, it can introduce field curvature, which can dramatically soften the corners. Or certain wide angle lenses can introduce corner distortion and softness. Ultimately, you need to experiment with what you can get your hands on, like Mann does. Large format photography is not soft by nature. Manns photos have a different kind of softness (and grain structure) compared to 16mm for example. I don't think 16mm would work particularly well to replicate the look of her photography. The trailers for "The Lighthouse" are some of the closest I've seen to replicating a certain kind of large format B&W photography, truly gorgeous. That was shot on 35mm Double -X. Check out DP Jarin Blaschke's comments in this thread: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/80887-‘the-lighthouse’-2019-trailer/
  15. 1 point
    Congrats Miguel! You’ve been doing awesome work of late.
  16. 1 point
    Thanks Mark! The awards were today for short-films... And I won!!!! Best Cinematography / Gold at the Kinsale Shark Awards 2019 for The Tattoo!!!! https://kinsalesharks.awardsengine.com/winners/2019/short-film Thanks Dom!!! Try this link! You might have to copy and paste it! https://vimeo.com/242408368/f24ceab70f Thanks guys!!! :)
  17. 1 point
    https://www.eplastics.com/plexiglass/acrylic-sheets 8'x10' seems to be the largest size they sell. They list 4'x12' so maybe three sheets to make 12'x12'? Seems like that would be easier to ship, layout, etc.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    Good on you Miguel! I tried to watch it, but the Vimeo link doesn’t seem to work anymore.
  20. 1 point
    Congrats Miguel, very cool! Good luck!
  21. 1 point
    The traditional method would be a rostrum camera. The UK version of Ken Burns is Ken Morse, who's credit appeared on numerous TV productions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Morse https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0607633/ Today, get a high resolution digital copy of the still and use the DVE to create the moves.
  22. 1 point
    For moves on flat art using old traditional animation stands, the stand only moves the camera toward or away-from the art. The rest of the axis were achieved by moving the art. In the old days there was often a pantograph off to the side of the platen which was used to plot out the move. If anyone wants a full-size Oxberry, in two weeks I have to dismantle one in Seattle and take it to the scrapyard. I have asked around extensively and no one has room for it - it's huge! We will, of course, salvage the camera. If you have After Effects you can do everything the Oxberry could do and more, on your laptop.
  23. 1 point
    Sorry all... Bad news on most fronts! Marty Shelton is no longer around as far as I know everyone else has basically sold out of them. Birns & Sawyer used to sell them new for many years and is who we bought them through. The used ones we have seen come in for some years now are brittle and pretty much done so consider going to a 4-pin XLR conversion. These also used to be a simple mod and unfortunately have also gone the way of the dinosuar in that the right-angle 4-pin XLR connectors from Canon and Switchcraft are no longer available. Some years ago they could be purchased in large quantity and I remember having that conversation with Steve Gal at Duall Cameras in New York. He said he was considering buying them in bulk and may have... I don't know but if he did is the probably the best source for a nice 4-pin XLR mod. Otherwise figure in soldering a cable terminated in 4-pin XLR female right to the protruding pins on the back of the camera and being done with it. Good luck from all of us here at VP-
  24. 1 point
    There is another factor that has so far been overlooked. Manual focus stills lenses are only designed for a person's hand to turn the focus ring slowly, by small amounts. (This also applies to older cine lenses like standard speeds, which were primarily focused by hand via a follow focus.) Modern cinema lenses need to be robust enough to handle the very high torque of remote lens motors, turning the lens 300 degrees from infinity to minimum focus in a fraction of a second, possibly hundreds of times per day, day in and day out. Repeated high torque focus racks like this would quickly destroy the mechanical parts most stills lenses (and it isn't good for cine lenses with older mechanical designs either). When you add in the increased complexity for other reasons, e.g. breathing correction, and the need for quick, easy maintenance, it's no surprise that the construction of the lens becomes larger.
  25. 1 point
    I used to QC the master tapes for UK broadcast, the footage always looked clean, similar to any other multi-cam sitcom on video. General high key light. The focus is very deep its clear they are smashing in a lot of light. Unless later seasons have been experimenting with "film look" grain processes I suspect is the distribution chain. Its quite a thing to watch the high bitrate image coming off server or HDCAM-SR tape in the transmission suite at the same time as the live off air return. What the viewers see at home is horrible compared to the masters. Its really shocking when you side by side them. Netflix is inconsistent in quality, their 4K orginals look pretty decent on the 15mbs stream. But there are quite a few shows, particually things mastered to Digi-Beta that look awful on Netflix and much worse the the source tape. Quite a lot of shows I QC'ed at C4 are on Netflix and they don't always look great - they seem to dump PAL video to 480 lines for some reason as well.
  26. 1 point
    I worked in a family video store back in the mid 90s that was known to have the largest porn collection in North America. We had around 100,000 VHS tapes (that number is a bit fuzzy- could be more or less). We also had family movies, etc. to rent. You could either buy or rent the tapes we had. Place was open 24 hours. Toms Video.
  27. 1 point
    The WGA / ATA mess surrounding packaging fees is a huge turning point. This has nothing to do with technology and I don't mean to hijack the thread but AJ touched on it briefly above with WDMV. Many in film behind the scenes are unaware of the development process and how it's been tightly controlled by a cartel of sorts among the talent agencies who have been in bed with all the major studios networks and platforms for decades. Cutting all kinds of deals with them packaging shows and films in exchange for keeping costs down for the very clients they are supposed to represent. It affects everyone from writers to showrunners and producers. Many distributors now won't look at any pitches or packages that don't come from the top 5. You often can't get meetings at HBO or Netflix without someone from the top 5 in your corner. Unless you're a name or known person in the business. We think of "gatekeepers" as development execs but it would seem it's really the agencies who are creating the biggest barrier by keeping producers from being able to reach talent and walling off networks and studios from anyone trying to break in and create something without an agency getting the lions share of the profits. This kind of systemic corruption has poisoned the industry for a while. It's only recently become more widely known because of the WGA standing up publicly against it. Where it's going, who knows but hopefully we'll see a system that is more equitable and fair to the actual creators. Platforms and network earnings have gone through the roof while writer salaries have gone down. Doesn't make any sense why this should be taking place other than pure greed.
  28. 1 point
    Cinematography Electronics makes and sells the Cinetape and Cine RT makes and sells the Focus Bug.
  29. 1 point
    Geoff Boyle, who runs the Cinematography mailing list, has just finished a series of lens tests. You can find the results, along with a lot of other tests he has done over the years, at cinematography.net
  30. 1 point
    I think film out records are a useful solution for long term archiving. But on films that are mastered as a digital file (most of them), they are an optical generation away and re-scanning in the future could result in shifts in colour and density compared to the digital original. Its perhaps a cost effective solution compared to migrating the digital files from one medium to the next every 10 years or so. That process gets expensive. But technically its not the best possible version, it being an analogue generation from the digital master. It would be technically preferable to retain access to the uncompressed digital file in its original form (or a lossless copy). From an archive perspective thats better and allows for perfect digital copies to be distributed (the advantage of digital) Of course we know the archiving of digital files is a really difficult problem and the current typically magnetic solutions are not good enough. I've worked with LTOs and 1", D5 - the future long term stability of those formats isn't great. However, it is a problem that needs to be solved, the vast bulk of Human knowledge and information is sitting on magnetic media. Not just movies, but the entire internet. So more stable long term digital storage technologies will need to be created. Right now we are in a transitional phase where current tech can't really deal with the mid to long term archiving of everything being created. I wouldn't not be surprised if firms like Google and Amazon are throwing millions into R & D for the next generation of data storage. Quantum computing technologies that seem sci-fi now, will at some point become practical. Ideally we need to find a way to secure these digital film masters long term. Holding onto the camera neg is useful for revisions of films, But If I wanted to watch a film I'd rather have digital master if thats the format the film was produced in, then a new version created by reconfirming and scanning to OCN. For instances: Take 'O Brother Where Art Thou?" - one of the first 2K DI's. Thats the version of the film, I'd want to watch, the 2K version that had Deakins in the suite making the grading decisions. Digital scanning and grading has moved on since that film was produced. But the film is an achievement, partially because it is using the then available tech. Sure, you could go back to the camera neg, re-scan in 4K+, reconform etc... Technically you could create a "better" version of "O Brother Where Are Thou?". It would be sharper more detailed, more subtle grading, perhaps be HDR etc.. But it wouldn't be the version that represents the filmmakers original intent, or the version that audiences saw in cinemas. It would be close to impossible to recreate a matching version of "O Brother Where Art Thou?" By going back to the OCN and rescanning. Not matter how careful the restoration team would be, its going to risk changes e.g the scanner may be different, the grading tools different, it could be close but its different. I might event enjoy watching the new Dolby 4K HDR, ATMOS version of "O Brother", but not at the expense of loosing the original. Now, I'm not against restoration, I'm glad Lawrence of Arabia was restored by Robert Harris, because it he hadn't done it the full version of the film would have been lost. Restoration should rightly happen when the original elements are damaged or faded and work is needed to try and match the film makers intent. But its preferable not to loose the film in the first place.
  31. 1 point
    Well sure, but if you do your own work, you'll most likely keep your camera negative. If you're a gun for hire doing work for other people, I guess it's up to them or the studio to figure out how things are stored. Many films are lasered back to film in either an IN process OR RGB separation negatives for long-term storage. For the record, studio's generally only destroy camera negative that has no value to them. There are dozens of vaults in Los Angeles alone that store pretty much every major film ever shot. There is no reason why the studio would throw something away, unless it lost them money and they didn't care about the asset. The cost to shelf 100,000ft isn't that much, that's basically 100 boxes of film, not the end of the world.
  32. 1 point
    Film is cheaper. When exposing film you need a lab where someone develops your pictures. You come in contact with lab people which typically is priceless. If you want to buy yourself into such human relations in the digital world, you need a lot of money.
  33. 1 point
    This is an interesting one. It's long been talked about as "blue light hazard" and would also apply to discharge lamps including fluorescent and HMI. Before we get into this, though, it's worth pointing out that many articles which discuss this, including the one you linked, tend to conflate actual retina damage (phototoxicity) with disturbed circadian cycles and headaches potentially caused by flicker, which are presumably not medically related issues. If you look into the background of this the damage is usually only done with fairly unrealistic levels of exposure. A normal human aversion response will save most people in most circumstances. This may mean that the film industry needs to take at least some care, because we quite frequently ask actors not to look like they're squinting into the light. It's probably not a good idea to do that, but then it was never a good idea to do that, even with older style lighting. Personally I think the evidence doesn't really suggest that the additional exposure of film and TV work is likely to cause problems assuming reasonable precautions are taken. Don't make people stare into uncomfortably bright lights, especially those with a high shortwave output. I suspect HMI is worse than LED, as most LEDs don't have output below about 450nm whereas HMIs go all the way down to the near UV.
  34. 1 point
    As a professional editor, the way it normally works is that we create a cut on our own first without the Director. Usually it's just an assembly of the script, generally super long as well. Than the director comes in and gives his feedback on the cut, usually it's swapping performances rather then length cuts at first. Once the director and I have done a few passes together, we show the producers a cut. It's generally here where the producers, the director and the editor sit down and go over the cut. It takes a while, generally a few days of conference calls and/or notes. I make a lot of suggestions on the cut at this point and the director and I will mull about with the producer's notes, doing some, not doing others. We try everything, but not much winds up in the final piece. Once the producers, director and editor are happy with the show, we will send it out for a larger group screening. The best feedback comes from the group screenings, where the writers, cinematographer, executive producers and cast get to see it and give notes. If we have time to bring everyone together, we will do a round table discussion after and hash out some ideas on what people like or don't like. I'm sad that some people don't think this discussion is worth it, but I always try to push for it because getting feedback is so important. I work very closely with my DP's on the cut, I believe their input as being very valuable. I also have a good relationship with the DP's of the projects I edit. I've made a lot of changes to cuts based on DP's notes, especially with framing or takes that they did something special I may have not noticed. It's hard when you have 1800 shots in your final cut, to get every single little fancy move the DP's made. Generally the final cut of a film is a conglomerate of notes, forced upon the editor and director by the producers. We fight to get certain things in the film and the producers generally have the final say in a lot of ways It's our job to convince them XYZ is important and it's all down to how good of a negotiator you are. From my perspective as an editor, I like cutting shit because I think telling a story properly is far more important than ego. So it gets kinda disappointing when producers want stuff in the film that sucks or kill stuff that's great. Yes some directors have done "directors cuts" of their films, but most of the time it's because of rating or the films just being too long for theatrical. Every minute under 72 minutes or over 120 minutes, is a big deal. They'll wanna extend short films and decrease the length of long films. It's truly sad that's what dictates what we see, but hey that's how things work. Many directors do get final cut and force their producers and distributors to play what they have. That's why you don't see a director's cut of a Christopher Nolan film, because he can do anything he wants.
  35. 1 point
    Sandra, In short, it is all of the above. But It really depends on the project (commercial, web, theatrical, etc..) and the people involved. Strictly talking feature films the term "Directors cut" is not from the editor making all the choices, but more of the Producers and Studio having the final say. The Producers and the Studio and whoever owns the rights to the movie, generally have the final say in the edit and what gets released to the public. Then, if the director wants too/allowed too, he will work on a (Directors cut) with the editor. This can be released outside of the theatrical public release dependent on what the Producers and Studio allow. As a Director, you generally don't own the movie, you were hired to Direct. Same with the Editor, you were hired to Edit the movie according to the script/creative. Obviously, there is always room for creativity but ultimately you don't have full creative freedom and make all the decisions yourself. There are teams of people behind projects and it's a very collaborative process. At the other end outside of Hollywood productions and feature films you might be delivered a hard drive full of footage and given very limited creative input and you just need to make something "good" for an event edit or product edit, etc... You could be in charge of the edit, music, color, gfx all at once. This is a very short answer and I'm sure others will have better input but I hope this gives you a basic idea.
  36. 1 point
    There are no easy answers here, but if you consider that sometimes movies are an art form, not just a product for mass consumption, then not every choice has to be determined by what the audience cares about or notices -- sometimes it is enough for the artist to care about something and then hope there is a receptive audience for their particular vision. I don't think when David Lynch or Andrei Tarkovsky made a movie, they spent much of their time wondering what clients and consumers were asking for. It goes way beyond choice of shooting format, after all if you build a set and sew costumes, you have to make decisions on color schemes, textures, etc. that go way beyond a typical viewer's ability to care or notice. I think to some extent, audiences don't care because they don't have to, they expect the filmmakers to care. The skills needed to make any complex product are beyond the average consumer, but the consumer hopes that someone cares about the details. So if you hire artists to make something, anything, then one shouldn't be surprised that these artists have certain tastes for how things are done. And some artists are sensitive to the origination medium. I mean, would anyone be surprised if painters had opinions about working in oils versus acrylics, or sculptors working in marble versus wood?
  37. 1 point
    The Film Truthers are the same as Flat Earthers, it doesn't matter you can prove digital is cheaper using numbers and facts. They will still present some theory about shooting ratios and short ends that proves digital costs more. Right gotta go measure the horizon
  38. 1 point
    Bradford Young has done seriously amazing and beautiful work, I think hes this generations Harris Savides.
  39. 1 point
    I don't advocate NOT studying contemporary work, but only concentrating on that would be a mistake. Not sure there are many great comedians who haven't listened to Richard Pryor, who isn't contemporary. And I'm sure Richard Pryor listened to Redd Foxx and Lenny Bruce. If you want to be a very shallow commercial artist, sure, just look at the latest trends and copy that without knowing how or why things got to be like that. If you want your work to have some depth, expand your research. Plus, if cinematography is something you love, if making images is something you love, you aren't going to limit yourself to just contemporary works, you wouldn't be able to stop yourself from exploring further in many directions. Are you saying no one has become a better cinematographer by studying Gordon Willis or Conrad Hall? Gordon Willis has been a big influence on many contemporary cinematographers like Bradford Young.
  40. 1 point
    It looks to me that there are 3 light sources used in your example. 1. the practical lamp in the shot lights the table and a little bit of the player's bodies near the table. 2. there seems to be a soft (ish) source that top/front lights the rear two player's faces. It's flagged from the foreground players and is positioned close to the table or even above it. 3 there seems to be a soft (ish) back light for the foreground players there may also be some white reflector or minimal fill for the foreground players for when they turn towards the camera, but I can't really see this clearly from the example.
  41. 1 point
    Laugh if you like but I have a set of Nikon series E lenses from the early 80s which are surprising good, especially on an MFT camera like the pocket with some sort of reducing adaptor. Depends what you're doing, of course, but I didn't see the point in buying the expensive cheap lenses 😀
  42. 1 point
    I'd like to add a note of caution here. All this talk of using whatever technique to add warmth or coolness to the image is of course very straightforward and effective. The problem is as Stuart mentions the issue of people being surprised by it. Even when people have looked at monitors on the day and been very happy, even congratulatory, where these techniques have been used, it's not unusual to hear complaints a week later when we're all looking at it on Vimeo. I've had requests for cold, blue "New York Cop Drama" stuff and done it, or requests for "warm African sunset" stuff and done that, and I've had those same people complain "it's all blue" or "it's all orange", despite having signed off on tests and so forth. There can be an incredible degree of retroactive conservatism at play, and just because people claim to like it one day doesn't mean they'll defend you if their boss takes a contrary view. As such I would strongly encourage new or inexperienced people to treat the information in this thread with extreme caution. At the high end, people can be assumed to have some sort of taste, which is why they're involved in high end stuff to begin with. Anywhere else, extreme caution is required. I don't know if this is particularly a UK thing, but it's certainly visible in the output of, say, the BBC, which obviously looks well below average. The point is that if you bounce a blonde is the ceiling and white balance carefully, nobody can tell you you're wrong. P
  43. 1 point
    "Amelie" is a good example of the use of warming filters, Antique Suedes I think. It's hard to talk about an "effective" use of warming filters since warm can be added in timing as well, in post, and is just as effective or not, so you might as well be asking about movies that have a warm bias to the image and whether that works or not -- the fact that a filter was used instead of post to get the warmth matters less. Most warming filters of the same heaviness just vary by hue, some are more yellow-orange, some are more magenta-orange. When the only way to finish a movie was photochemically using RGB printer light values, some cinematographers swore up and down on certain warming filters, finding it too hard to match that hue if doing it just with printer lights. William Fraker, ASC used to claim that the color of a Coral filter couldn't be created in print timing. I'm not sure I agree but maybe I'm just less sensitive to the finer degrees of hue (color shift along the green-magenta axis). Pale warming filters were all the rage in the 1980's and 1990's, particularly the 1/4 Coral. I started out using them too but dropped after awhile, for various reasons. I was working as 2nd Unit on a low-budget movie where the DP used a 1/2 Coral filter on everything, as well as the 85 correction filter (to correct tungsten stock for daylight shooting), plus a Pola and a Color Enhancer --- I think there was at least a 3-stop light loss from all of these filters, plus that's a lot of glass to stack in front of the lens. But he never shot grey scales at the head of his rolls, unlike me, who always shot a grey scale without the warming filter added yet, so that the filter effect would not get timed out in dailies. So his dailies all were neutral, there was no warming effect of the Coral because the dailies colorist always just neutralized the first shot on the roll. I told him that colorists weren't mind-readers, the grey scale was there to tell them what neutral was so that when a warm filtered shot followed it, it was clearly intentional. Anyway in doing the final answer print, they put the warmth back in. But even on my own movies as DP's, where I shot grey scales and then put in the 1/4 Coral to get warm-toned dailies, I found that when I went to start answer printing, the first thing the timer did was make the first answer print neutral as a starting point, so it was in the second answer print that we added the warmth back in -- and I was sitting there in the theater saying "another point of red" or "a little more yellow" just to get a print with the warm color cast I wanted. At this point, I realized that if warmth could so easily be taken away or added by both the dailies colorist and the print timer, then why was I wasting the time shooting with a warming filter? It was just an extra piece of glass on the lens that could cause a flare or a double reflection, plus it had a light loss. So I changed tactics and started carrying pale cooling filters, light blue filters, and I shot my grey scales with that filter on and then pulled it for the scene. Now with dailies, the timer neutralized the blue filtered grey scale and then the following unfiltered scene had a warm bias to it. I also shot a sign after the grey scale to tell him that the warm bias was intentional. So I got my warm dailies. Inside, instead of a blue filter on the lens, I could use a light blue gel on the light used for the grey scale, like a 1/4 CTB. Then in post, making the answer print, we created a shade of warmth using the printer lights. Now if I wanted a much more extreme color bias to the image, like for a sepia-toned flashback, I'd still use filters because I didn't want to make extreme changes to the printer light values -- in this case, a heavy filter was biasing the negative so heavily away from neutral that it was affecting the density of the color layers enough that simply doing the effect in post wouldn't quite give you the same results. For example, if I used a Coral 5 or a heavy Chocolate filter, I'd be cancelling so much blue information on the negative that it would be hard to restore it in post, so the effect caused a little bit of desaturation, which was useful for doing a western or period piece. Now today, I'd still probably do it in post because digital color-correction tools are so good, but it just depends on the amount of footage I needed to have with that heavy effect. If a brief flashback or dream, I might do it on set with filters on the camera because it is a quick way of getting the effect and I can deal with the inconvenience of the light loss and the extra glass for just a few shots. But if it were an entire movie, I'd probably figure out a way of getting that look in post, particularly for interiors. Even in the case of "Amelie" I think they only used the Antique Suede filters outdoors.
  44. 1 point
    I used a 24-light Maxi outside the windows on the left to create a late afternoon effect in this gym:
  45. 1 point
    If the films are in the sealed foil they cannot be humid. It is airtight. Take them from the storage a few hours ahead of time. Or a day. Nothing wrong with that. This jamming is an eternal topic. Kodak is not doing anything differently and 10.000-s of these films are being used around the world without trouble. Don't mistake these few film forums for the world. They are not. Most likely there is something wrong with cameras who don't pull it :) They are over 30 years old and likely saw no maintenance at all :( Just take the jammed cartridge out and test the free moving. I.e. put your thumb on the film lighty to press in the pressure plate a little and then by friction drive the film downward. It should show if it jams and which direction is stuck. The feed or the pick-up.
  46. 1 point
    I tend to agree with Jean-Louis that it's a telecine related problem. The jumpiness is too even and steady throughout your segment to believe it came from the original incamera exposure. However, it still could be the camera...but I have never seen unsteadiness like this from a NIZO; it tends to jump if in the camera, but not so perfectly from frame to frame. Regarding the other issue, of the EK100D film being thicker and running rougher etc. This has also been an issue many times with the previous EK64T as well. A similar situation can occur with FOMAPAN R-100, which normally is not available in Super 8mm cartridges but can be custom loaded that way privately. As with any Super 8mm film cartridge film sticking or jumpiness incamera problem, a nice wipe of the film gate with a clean cotton flannel cloth moistened with pure Silicone will solve that. Should a cartridge give further problems, pull the film out of the cartridge gate so you can wipe the pressure plate with Silicone as well. That has cured 99% of any problem I've ever had with cartridges being problematic that way. Super 8mm film cartridges will jam for a small variety of reasons: [1]. High humidity present in environment upon opening of foil seal pack, causing film emulsion to swell like a sponge...that part that's exposed in the cartridge gate. This will usually cause a film to jam right at the beginning. SOLUTION: pull the film downward and rotate the takeup core clockwise to take up the slack. If very humid, make sure to wipe film gate with Silicone....if a deep film chamber such as a rear loading camera (which the NIZO is), you can just GENEROUSLY wipe the exposed film surface with Silicone and it will wipe the camera gate when you reinsert it. [2]. Film jamming from using the Film Rewind, Double Exposure, or Lap Dissolve function on a camera. What happens is the film will jam, either because the rewind function was begung too early in the cartridge (wait until at least 5 feet of film has been run) or too late in the cartridge (don't inititate a film rewind within the last 5 to 10 feet of a cartridge's remaining film length). SOLUTION: Take up any film slack by rotating the film takeup core clockwise, if no slack....then depress the Pressure Plate in the cartridge by using a small screwdriver or tweezers to either side of the film...and while holding it in, pull the film downward. Do this for a few inches of film, sometimes it has to be done for as much as a foot of film....then keep taking up the slack by rotating the film takeup core clockwise. NOTE: Should the film NOT pull down due to a severe jam....do NOT force it then. The film could just break. Notify the lab of a film jam in this situation when sending it in for processing. [3]. Film jam caused a film pull-down to takup core rotation problem.....or by using high running speeds in a given camera ( Slow Motion ), in which the film takeup core isn't rotating fast enough to keep up with the film fed to it from the cartridge gate, so it overslacks into the takeup chamber side of the cartridge. This either manifests itself via a full jam, or if shot at normal running speeds of 18fps or 24fps, can just cause the film to jitter while it's running. SOLUTION: remove cartridge from the camera and wind up the excessive slack in the cartridge by rotating the film takeup core clockwise until the film is taunt. Do NOT force the film too tightly. If the problem persists on a given camera, then use the film in another camera instead and/or avoid using the Slow Motion feature on that given camera causing the problem (IF the problem only happens in the Slow Motion mode setting). [4]. Film manufacturing problem regarding sprocket holes (perforations) or a faulty cartridge where film is not unspooling from the supply side smoothly due to a warped or jammed Slip Disc (thin plastic disc the film sits on and rotates as it feeds) or a jammed or popped-off or otherwise damaged film feed roller which is just above the film gate where the film turns over on so it's emulsion side out as it runs thru the film gate. Any cartridge related problem requires opening the cartridge to assess the problem, resetting the film in the fixed cartridge or another one, and then sealing up the cartridge. ADDENUM: There's another way to fix jammed Super 8m Cartridges, but it is involved and requires opening up the cartridge and resetting the film correctly so it will run. If the jam occurred early enough before main filming, it's best to just rewind the entire film load and reload it into a good working cartridge. I know what you're thinking, where does one get this done. PPS does this type of service here....but if you do your own film processing, you can learn how to work with the cartridges to use them. It does require making up a small jig to wind the film up for the Supply Side of the Super 8mm Cartridge so that it will rotate on the stationary hub smoothly.
  47. 1 point
    Hey Alec, Have you tried projecting the image with a super8 projector? I have a funny feeling the jumpiness is related to the digital transfer. If it looks the same projected, then John's comments cover the possible causes. Cheers, Jean-Louis
  48. 1 point
    Here is an example from my shooting this week -- a parking lot with a metal halide lamp on a pole behind the van -- I had a small 45' lift off-camera left and hung a tungsten softbox (some sort of coop light w/ six globes) with 3/4 Blue + 1/2 Plus Green on it to create a similar look over the top of the van. The foreground person is side-lit by an HMI bounced off of an 8'x8' white -- the HMI had 1/4 Orange + 1/2 Plus Green: In this photo I took from "Assassination of a High School President" shoot, I had a real mercury vapor lamp attached to the building, plus there was already one on the right -- and then I hit the person with a tungsten overhead spot with Cyan 60 gel:
  49. -1 points
    I understand your point is in the support of eclecticism, and I agree with aiming for that. There are far more film study discussions on the classic DPs than modern DPs, in stipulating "modern" I'm attempting to get some freshness. This might be a hot take, but in the age of the internet, delving into all the classic DPs could lead to stagnation when we have free access to billions of hours of visual content. Would you be surprised if a cinematographer in 2040 was heavily influenced by Vines and Michael Bay but never really cared for Citizen Kane or The Godfather? We've had 100 years of consistency and the internet is without a doubt soon to destroy it.
  50. -1 points
    When you stand for a short period of time your ankles and joints crack when you move and get in the sound. Heavy breathing has to be suppressed and gets in the sound. When you handhold on the shoulder heavy breathing can raise or lower the camera. Then your shoulder is pinched the next day from holding the camera. You are always choking up and trying not to cough. …it is hell being an old cameraman
  • Create New...