Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/24/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Hmm an attempt to get more coverage? Cropping reduces quality. Or they could have been running at different framerates, shutter speed, stills, VFX look around etc... who could forget the 35mm/HD hybrid from:
  2. 3 points
    Because the mirror/shutter edge lines up with the expanded edge of the S16 gate aperture, if you don't decrease the shutter angle from 180 to 172.8 degrees you will get smearing along the whole edge of the frame. If you crop it out you may as well not have converted to S16 in the first place. Many people glued a lightweight wedge to the mirror edge to do this, but it needs to be securely fixed and very accurately positioned so as not to scrape while spinning. Typically a job for a trained technician. The magazine conversion is less essential, though there is definitely a possibility that the expanded S16 area will get scratches, scuffs or simply bruising. Again, it affects the whole side of the frame where rollers, sprockets and guides will contact the newly expanded image area, so cropping just gets you back to N16. If you don't re-centre the lens mount you probably won't notice anything drastic with 35mm format lenses except zooms will track off to one side. How are you modifying the gate? If it's not done very competently you will get scratches from burred edges. Don't just use a file for example. If you expand into the area of the left vertical support rail you need to machine that rail down thinner all along its length so that the expanded picture area does not run along it. Google pictures of the narrow left rail on SR3 gates. When I was working on Arriflexes, I would use a jig with a gauge to re-fit the gate so that the aperture lined up with the ground glass, and then use a depth gauge to check and adjust the flange depth to within 0.01mm. Everything on Arriflexes is adjustable, if you take them apart you can easily lose fine settings. Personally I think if you can't afford an already converted S16 SR2 , it's a waste of time trying to convert one on the cheap. A half-arsed conversion will turn what was a professional camera into little better than a quieter K3.
  3. 3 points
    Modern digital cameras often do not see saturated colour very clearly, and there isn't a very good solution to it. The problem is that, instinctively, one would assume that the RGB filters on a Bayer-patterned sensor would be bright, saturated, primary colours. They're not. Often they're pretty desaturated, which helps with sensitivity (by not filtering out too much light). It also helps with sharpness, because the RGB images from the Bayer sensor are not as different as we'd expect; it's easier to infer where sharp edges are in the image since all of the pixels can see most of them. The result is a picture with rather reduced saturation. This can be corrected with what a specialist might generally call "matrixing," but which basically means "winding the saturation up." This works to a degree, but subtle distinctions between colours can be reduced; for instance, a lot of Bayer cameras can have trouble telling purple from blue, and it can introduce chroma noise if people try too hard to tease out the colorimetry. There are a lot of caveats to all of this. Higher end cameras are more likely to use more saturated filters, accept the sensitivity and sharpness hit, and achieve better colorimetry as a result. An Alexa is not a great example because it's far from the latest technology, but it was never a design which targeted massive sharpness or huge sensitivity. It does, though, have a nice colour response. Also, the human eye works very much in the same way; it does have red, green and blue-sensitive cells, perhaps better described as long-wavelength, medium-wavelength and short-wavelength because they have a very broad sensitivity that overlaps a lot, much like a camera sensor. I don't know if what you're describing is caused by all this, but it's likely it has at least some impact. P
  4. 3 points
    There are many degrees of backlight, both in softness and in intensity. I tend to reserve a very strong hard backlight for situations where it is motivated, like from sunlight. Here are three examples from work I did last year, from dailies. First is a hard backlight from a 1K tungsten parcan, motivated by the high window on the set (though the backlight was rigged inside the room), the second is a soft backlight motivated by a chandelier, using a Litemat LED, the third is from a 20K outside the set window.
  5. 2 points
    If anyone says they don't see a difference, they either are sitting far, far away from the screen or their eyesight is in question, honestly. There ARE some very rare examples of super clean 35mm, but yeah, otherwise, it's plain as day. 16mm and 2 perf are of course either more blatant. But hell, even anamorphic 35mm these days can be plenty grainy. I love it when DPs push process and really aren't scared of grain.
  6. 2 points
    but this is evanglism from your side btw. however… i do care on the choice of formats and i do respect the choices of others. But i don´t like when people do "anti" film propaganda… cause this ends in dump discussions with producers… just to remember, thats what i wrote: "not saying that this trailer does look terrible but i got distracted by the look. And i loved wide-angled shots chivo does on the prior mallick movies." just means that i got distracted by the look -. thats what the look does to me however what it was shot on. I do personally like all mediums digital & film and i use mainly the alexa for tvc/advertising work. But i still see many reason for both formats film & digital nowadays 2019. And I can´t understand why people propaganda digital as be as same as film…or saying that there isn´ßt any difference (what you clearly said above) there is still a differnce and i can tell you from many many telecine & grading sessions. Also a reason why many cinemato and photographers still use film. And no i am not a Film Fanboy… But saying there is no difference isn´t the truth. And yes its a CInematographers Forum we still should discuss about that! But enough for now… sorry for getting this out of Topic.
  7. 2 points
    I didn't read the original post as that. Maybe there was nothing to defend? Anyway, here's to good films. Whichever method.
  8. 2 points
    For the record, I am the crazy person. Let me explain. So I went to my very first film festival as a director. The producer submitted it so I had a free VIP pass so I figured "why not?" I meet up with the crew, go into the VIP lounge and see people taking themselves way too seriously. It's a film festival so comes with the territory, but they had the nerve to cater the lounge with JERSEY MIKES COLD SUBS. For our international posters; Jersey Mikes is a more pretentious Subway. Literally the only good thing they do is hot subs, but they gave us cold subs.... The big positive before showings: I MET SINBAD AND ASKED HIM IF HE'S STILL GETTING CHECKS FROM "JINGLE ALL THE WAY" So now it's time to enter the theater to sit through a bunch of other shorts I don't care about so I can see what I worked on played on the big screen. 45 minutes of poor audio, bad acting, confusing narratives, and cliche visual choices later: The documentary I worked on played on the screen. I gave the producer 2 different final files. One was studio-levels, the other was computer-levels. I was let down to see the projectionist (guy with a Macbook) chose the wrong version, so the final image was overly crushed and had odd compression waves in the shadows (let me know if that might've been my fault, I hadn't seen it on ANY screen/projector I played it back on beforehand). Skip to this section for the best part of the festival hijinks So a couple of us get out of the theater and there's a suit that walks up to use who needs us for some mock red carpet interview.... here is my chance to promote this project The following is 90% accurate of what was actually said: Interviewer: "So how did you and the producer come together for this project?" Me: "I just found an ad on Twitter.. I showed up to Newark, New Jersey looking forward to being murdered by an internet stranger. Unfortunately that didn't happen so here we are." Interviewer: "So were you the writer too?" Me: "It was a documentary, there were no writers." Interviewer: "How did you guys creatively gel" Me: "Honestly really well. I had been using R&B for montages and transitions for years, so I could make this doc feel like an Osmosis Jones transition." Interviewer: "Did you see any of the other shorts?" Me: "Yeah they were boring except for the one about Cricket" Interviewer: "So you're nominated for an award, any advice you'd like to give your fellow filmmakers?" Me: "Festivals are cool but no one actually shows up to these things so focus your time and energy on building an audience via social media. Also film school is a scam, do not go to film school it is a debt trap, your parents are wrong, they know literally nothing about this industry" UPON SAYING FILM SCHOOL IS A SCAM THE ENTIRE CAMERA CREW WAS SILENTLY CHEERING ME ON and then after we walked off the red rug, 2 of the festival helpers (all of these were high school kids) called out like "Dude you're awesome I was trying to figure out if I should go to art school!" I went up and talked to the guy, next to him were 2 girl helpers all fascinated with who this guy saying hella real stuff was. I told them I was a filmmaker who built my audience via social media, my work had gotten over 100 million views and at one point Youtube star PewDiePie stole a clip from one of my videos and had to email me to resolve the issue. Soon after, like 8 of the high school interns were crowded around to hear me talk, it was like a fever dream. At one point in the gathering I asked what they were getting paid to help, they said they were all unpaid interns. I responded with "I heard unpaid internships are illegal now?" That had them pumped up to just walk out during the middle of the festival. "OH MY GOD THANK YOU" one of them said. Another said they had to be waiting up at a door to make sure no one would sneak in. I told him "Dude you're at a film festival no one wants to sneak into this trash, you aren't even getting paid they can't force you to do anything." Their supervisors walked by reminding them to return to their posts and the kids were all reluctant to listen after my pep talk. Yes, I single handedly destroyed the morale of a film festival's entire working staff. So the lesson to be learned here is I am a universal entertainer and someone better get me a show deal before I turn actually crazy.
  9. 2 points
    Allow me to lead a round of applause. Not to self-plug, but I find this guy is apposite and intelligent: https://www.redsharknews.com/business/item/1375-opinion-is-film-school-worth-it https://www.redsharknews.com/business/item/4870-how-to-give-the-best-advice-to-newcomers https://www.redsharknews.com/business/item/1372-don-t-work-for-free
  10. 2 points
    Funnily enough, there's a brilliant video on the Indy Mogul YouTube channel about use of water, featuring an intelligent, hilarious and good-looking British guy. In short a garden hosepipe is enough for even reasonably large areas, but the real issue is having control over that area. Don't wet down an area that some unsuspecting member of the public might drive or walk on. P
  11. 2 points
    Sounds like you already figured it out! Backlight and edge light is all about ratio's. How bright your background, key, and edge/back will determine the edge/back's effectiveness. Quality of light will only determine if the edge/back will have a hotspot or not. Soft edge/back lights have no hotspots while hard edge/back lights have a hotspot. (Also, if you're hard light edge/back is too bright, putting diffusion on it will actually slow it down faster than dimming it) The still you posted from Shutter Island was shot by Robert Richardson who often uses a strong backlight and bounce card combo (I believe known as a fire starter?). He uses a really bright backlight and bounces in the key from the backlight. I did this on a feature recently and it turned out great: --- I agree with Satsuki that halation makes these punchy backlights look great. Some lenses naturally have halation like vintage or uncoated lenses.
  12. 2 points
    XX Neg can be tricky but also some great results can be had from it. Here is a Super-16mm film we developed and scanned to 4K on the Xena 5K machine which has gotten some really good attention.
  13. 2 points
    I don't think Bruce is saying to literally specialize in ultra high speed slow motion equipment. I think he's trying to communicate that it would be a good idea to specialize in something that very few others do where you're at. The question I think you need to ask yourself is, what's the vacuum in your market that you can fill? It might be slow motion, jib, etc., but do your research and see if it resonates with you.
  14. 2 points
    We shot "The Lighthouse" on 5222 and its an old, soft, finicky stock. Whether it's worth a 4k scan depends on how you treat the film and the lenses you use. I mostly processed it at "-1/2" with 2/3 stops extra exposure. This sharpens it up and increases dynamic range. Even then, a gray tone would already be black at -4 1/2 stops incident. Highlights fare much better, but still, latitude is still not great. Neither is resolution - I'm not so sure 5222 achieves 4k when I see the our untouched 4k scanned footage next to the 2k VFX footage. However, HDR might be worth it. Personally, I like more contrast in black and white and more subtlety in color. 5222 did have one superior trait. From my tests 5222 has much more "local" or "micro" contrast and separation than either 35mm color film or Alexa footage. Even while being softer and grainier. In that way, it is irreplaceable. Jarin ps: 7222 is much too soft. I wouldn't shoot it. In 16mm I'd shoot TriX instead and process as a negative. A very pretty stock. If only they made it in 35mm! Just pull a stop to get the right contrast!
  15. 2 points
    When I first started shooting digital capture, I metered and lit for a "film" look. IOW, the meat of the image within the 6 stop range, with the extra highlight and shadow detail for rolling off into black and white. But, over time I've adjusted my approach to using much more of the dynamic range of the camera for presentation and using less for rolloff. So, I'm lighting much more high contrast than I used to, and grading with a much lower contrast. Kind of like lighting for 10 stops of DR rather than 6. For a day exterior, this doesn't much matter as I have little control over the lighting, but if I have a deep shadow area and a sunlit area in the same shot, I might not fill in the shadow area at all or little. Note that when using this technique, one must carefully watch the clip points of the image as there can be little room for recovery in post color correction. And if you are metering with this approach, a spot meter can be useful, but you must run some tests so that your ISO setting on the meter corresponds to the recording of the camera. So, ISO on the camera might not match that on the light meter. Of course you can also use the waveform or other tools from the camera and/or display but they must not be viewed through a REC709 LUT or you won't see all the information.
  16. 2 points
    Thanks guys. I need to convince A24 to make prints! What's interesting about exposing and grading black and white is that you make day scenes brighter than you normally would, since it's your only tool to strengthen transitions between night and day. This is not fully portrayed by this first trailer, which has a very high number of shots from our "dusk" and "dawn" scenes. This film was much different than the Witch. This time, the night scenes around the "lantern" that look so dark in the movie were nearly blinding on set. It also has a proper black and often good highlights, unlike the low-con look of "The Witch." We may continue to stay rich in contrast for our next color film as well. Shall see. Harris Savides had such a profound influence on so many of us cinematographers. For me, the soft look and unending highlight scale stuck for a long time. Jarin
  17. 2 points
    Looking for Kurtz.. Mekong River .. never get out of the boat ..
  18. 2 points
    The inverse square law holds the same for diffused light as it does for a point source. The one difference, is that when you place diffusion in front of light, the diffusion surface becomes the light source. So, you would measure from the diffusion and not the lamp behind the diffusion.
  19. 2 points
    Ursa Mini Pro. Nikon Series E.
  20. 1 point
    That's dangerous territory. All labor has a cash price, it's all about what you have the leverage to negotiate for.
  21. 1 point
    I'm usually very cautious about any sort of film school as they're a lot of money and the results are very unsure. As far as I'm aware, Ravensbourne has a pretty decent record of putting people into employment so it may be one of the better choices, but you should still do a lot of research about exactly what sort of job you want to get, and what you will need to get it. I associate Ravensbourne more with broadcast TV than single-camera drama and features, but either way, I recommend seeing if you can get out on any full-size sets and see what actually goes on. Look into what the union has going on for that. I don't think there are any jobs in film or TV that you absolutely must have a college course to do other than some of the electrical roles, and that's not usually a college course anyway (and it isn't that complicated.) Think very hard before you go deeply into debt on this. P
  22. 1 point
    Robin, the initial post has no reference to a film being "ruined" because it was shot digital. People have commented that the trailer looks video-ish and cheap but that is not a comment about the quality of the story. Nobody has dismissed the film. How can they, nobody has seen it yet. Forgive me but you often get very agitated about things that are not actually being said.
  23. 1 point
    Your words.".Iam sure even the best DP,s can tell".. well Roger Deakins is probably the best living DP.. certainly one of the biggest back catalogue s in film and digital with many different looks .. so Im making that point .. in a lucid, logical .. even masterly way..
  24. 1 point
    A few things... 1. A "middle" grey card is not in the center of the optimum exposure range. At the standard rated ISO exposure, it will be about 1/2 stop below the middle, compared to the "X" crossover on a video greyscale chart. 2. When viewing dynamic range on film vs. a digital camera, the DR refers to areas where detail is visible vs. not visible. But this does not mean that the quality of detail at the extremes is the same as the quality of detail in the middle of the range. While detail in the deep shadows can be distinguished, it is very grainy, which is disguised by the compression of the detail in the characteristic curve as rendered on a print. On the highlight end of the curve, it is not so grainy, but also not so detailed either, and there could be some color shifting. So, it's best to think of the range of tones that you are capturing as about 6 to 8 stops, with everything above and below as "roll off" into shadows and highlights. This is especially true in 16mm where you are enlarging the grain of the film much more than on 35mm film. 3. When you "push" the film processing, you are gaining "exposure" in the middle by loosing detail in the shadows. So, if when you expose normally you would get 2.5 to 3 stops of detail below your grey card exposure, when pushed 1 stop you will get 1.5 to 2 stops of detail below your grey card exposure. Also when pushing, instead of 3 to 4 or 5stops of usable detail above the grey card, by over development of the negative, you will likely loose a stop there as well. So, when exposing film for push processing, instead of a perceived DR of 6 to 8 stops, it's more like 5 to 7 stops. Personally, I feel that push processing 16mm film is a pretty harsh look. And, if you do, I would light and expose the film as if you were limited to 5 1/2 stops. 2.5 stops below the grey card and 3 stops above.
  25. 1 point
    This camera is a game changer for many reasons, not just resolution, but also a "close to" 35mm sized imager and EF mount, two things that were not quite ready on the previous version. I really hope it will do 2.8k with my super 16mm lenses, that would be so hot if that worked. I was still going to buy a 4k version, but this new version really takes the cake. It also pulls Blackmagic's pants down on the URSA Mini Pro, because they will OBVIOUSLY be updating that very soon. My guess is with all the talk about 8k in the presentation, the new UMP will be 8k with a FF imager. That's kind of what the rumors have been steering towards. Now that the pocket is 6k with a 35mm imager size, it's the next best move for the company in my guestimation.
  26. 1 point
    The IATSE union dropped the requirement for a camera operator some years ago. The DP is free to operate the camera if they so choose. Personally, I prefer a camera operator rather than doing it myself.
  27. 1 point
  28. 1 point
    For big budget films, it seems much more common amongst DPs from Europe or Australia where DPs more frequently operates the camera as well.
  29. 1 point
    Andre at AM camera here in Southern California has been working on it. No solution yet, but it's a pretty standard belt. They just need to be cut down to size. I'm getting the specs from Aaton soon, I've just been busy with other stuff to research and come up with a game plan myself.
  30. 1 point
    Hi Tyler Can you shed more light on who's working on a belt solution? I'd happily participate in partially funding such an endeavor if there would be others who'd contribute - they could set up a small indigogo or kickstarter campaign. Cheers David
  31. 1 point
    Thanks for sharing your experience Tyler. I too was toying with the idea of renting my gear out. While Phoenix has a fair amount of production, it's by no means a media city, and the Sharegrid/Kitsplit community here is small. I was on the fence, but I think you're pushing me to the side of not renting unless it's someone I know and trust.
  32. 1 point
    My first major equipment purchase was a Steadicam back in 1984, when few people would take a chance on such a difficult and expensive piece of equipment. Within months I started getting calls, even from some major motion pictures. But it's still expensive, and now a common item. Off the top of my head, maybe some specialized piece of equipment like an ultra high speed slow motion camera? A technocrane, as it is very big and few would want to take one home at the end of the day? You might think about "barriers to entry" (size, expense, complexity, difficulty to master) to try to find a unique niche.
  33. 1 point
    I the credit thing, I think it can look really silly when people credit themselves on two many roles. Especially when they give a separate full screen credit to each thing. If I have done multiple roles i credit them as a single line eg. "Written, directed and edited by Philip connolly". That's pretty clean and sensible. You could make up names for the other roles, but again could look silly. Why invent credits just keep it short. I credit myself on the max 3 most important roles I've done. If I did other roles and I probably did (e.g catering, dit, costume, art dept) i just omit those from the credits. Looks silly otherwise. Or credit yourself as "made by" or "filmmaker". The overly self reverential credits makes you look silly if you go down that route. Or credit your cast and crew and go everything else ......
  34. 1 point
    You have the right idea of counting the stops up and down from middle grey within the camera's native DR. Let's you go in and manually take care of thing if you find the Rec709 conversion to be too punchy. On the other hand, I really only ever meter when shooting film. A color monitor in Rec709 has worked fine as my meter.
  35. 1 point
    Dunno. We used a an early generation Alexa with a Panavision-modified 1960's Super Baltar at T/2. It turned out alright. The critical key is triple-wick candles and hiding additional tea-lights in the right places. Jarin
  36. 1 point
  37. 1 point
    IMdb tech specs says some of it is shot on S16. I haven't seen this show yet. Must do.
  38. 1 point
    XAVC Class 300 feels pretty comparable to standard Prores422 in terms of overall image quality. I haven’t compared them side by side, but I feel like I’ve encountered compression artefacts in similar levels from both. Prores422HQ I’d put it a bit above standard XAVC. Both are mastering codecs though, and far above a delivery codec like h264. Prores is self-contained and drag-and-drop though, which makes it VASTLY easier to deal with in post than XAVC.
  39. 1 point
    The longer I do this, the more a realize that filmmaking is almost an impossible task to succeed at. The odds are so stacked against you, it's like winning a lottery ticket if it turns out great. I have nothing but respect for those that manage to pull of filmmaking and have every department pull in the same direction, despite all the odds, and elevate into something else. I also started out thinking it was easy. Now I know better.
  40. 1 point
    One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the hard lighting back then was done with fresnel units, so if you wanted to use LED instead of tungsten, keep that in mind and look for fresnel LED’s for any frontal key lighting or shadow-making effects. Matters less for backlights or big lights far away, or anything to be softened. As for color, just watch out for letting your LED’s get over-saturated when doing color effects — some let you desaturate the effect.
  41. 1 point
    I don't have direct experience with the Cintel scanner other than demos at NAB. But it's got an incredibly noisy sensor with dense film - so noisy you could see it on the demo film they were using at the show, for at least the first two years they had it there. Assuming the end result of their HDR is similar to what you get on other scanners that do the two or more flashes at the same time, like the Lasergraphics or Arriscans, (rather than as a second pass with post-processing), you should see a significant improvement in noise, if not dynamic range. That said, Tyler is right - you're not getting 4k UHD from 16mm with that machine. Roughly HD is the max res for it . If you're being sold a 4k 16mm scan, whoever is selling you that is cheating and upscaling from HD to UHD (which is a substantial upscale and will definitely result in degraded image quality and significantly increased softness).
  42. 1 point
    when shooting in a forest I often find it challenging to control the shadow colours reliably. there tends to be lots and lots of green cast from all the greens around you and that contaminates the shadows very easily because the key and sky ambience are limited by trees and are thus often very directional and everything around is dim and green which just reflects the green everywhere. You can use it as a part of the look of course but if you want to cancel it you may want to use large bounces (if there is enough direct sunlight available) or artificial lights (larger surface softer lights just enough to cancel the green and add a little of pure cold light to the shadows) if direct sun is not available. On a recent shoot I had two 4' 4-bank Kino Flos on outdoor set in the middle of the day which looked ridiculous because they are not normally used that way but they had just enough output to create a nice shaping light on a cloudy day to a couple of meters wide set without consuming too much power or being overly heavy to carry about 1km off the road to the forest along with the small genny and sandbags and stands and everything. then could bounce that kino light and the sky ambience around as needed.
  43. 1 point
    Skylight is cooler than direct sunlight — you can see that with your own eyes. The sky is blue. You mean you’ve never noticed the colder shadows near sunset on a clear day? The French Plantation dinner scene in Apocalypse Now Redux is an example, people not being hit by the direct setting sun or its bounce back / reflection at them are lit with a whiter light.
  44. 1 point
    LEDs are great if you need smaller amount of relatively soft but still directional light, especially if on battery power and if you need to be able to adjust it quickly. they are still relatively expensive option if you need lots of power and you need to decide if you need cheaper to rent package and more power (HMI, Tungsten or Kino Flo) or easier to manage fixtures with shorter total setup times (LED, possibly even battery powered compared to a diffused and gelled tungsten for example) . adjustable colour temperature is a plus but it has the disadvantage of losing lots of lumens when using the adjustable LED for cold light where you tend to need the highest output (night scenes and daylight scenes) . I personally prefer daylight-only LED fixtures for the highest output for normal uses (by my opinion the LEDs are most useful when you need cold light with limited power supply available and need to be able to move the light quickly) and HMI if needing more output or punch. Gelling a daylight LED to tungsten temp is not a huge loss but gelling a tungsten LED up to daylight is nonsense considering the LED fixtures tend to be relatively low output to begin with. Large Kino fixture may still be the best option for uses where you need relatively soft light with relatively high output with limited power available. renting a couple of hundred watts daylight LED fixture is much more expensive than renting a beat up Kino with similar output. If one has unlimited budget OR unlimited power OR unlimited time available then one has lots of options 🙂 the thing with the LEDs is, they are generally pretty low powered fixtures to begin with and for uses where you need to fight the other light sources in the scene they are less useful than for scenes where they can be used for easy and fast to manage supplementary lighting or where you can use the LEDs as the only light sources so that the low power output may not be an issue at all and you can take benefit of the sensitive digital cameras now available to be able to get by with lower overall light levels on set. for fighting sunlight any LED lighting is pretty useless. you are lucky if you can even see that the fixture is switched on 😂
  45. 1 point
    B&W camera stocks don’t use remjet (carbon backing) — I think they use a grey dye undercoat. Probably remjet helps reduce exposure leaks when loading daylight spools but b&w stocks were sold in daylight spools. You probably should load in the shade at least... the lack of anti-halation mainly means you’ll have some halation issues, maybe that will be pretty, or maybe annoying.
  46. 1 point
    I'd also recommend shooting with an extra safety area all around recorded so your editor has the ability to reframe and line-up each shot precisely. In this case shooting with a format with more resolution than your finished product would help. And use a prime lens and note camera height and angle of tilt to match to each time. Having playback operator on the day who can do frame overlays might be helpful.
  47. 1 point
    If I may, I would like to contribute a set up I did for a $500k feature I did last year. The Scene In the film, two characters must use a canoe to return from an island to their coastal home. However, their return home becomes dangerous when a thick fog rolls in. Inevitably, they become lost. The Results Behind the Scenes I only had a 3 ton grip truck for this feature, supplied by my gaffer Jarrod Wilson of Pirate Grip/Electric. Joe Paulet was my key grip for this project. My plan was to find an inclosed pool, block out all sun light, black out the pool, and then fog the crap out of the room. We found a pool that was 20'x40' long. We were scheduled to have one whole day to shoot this sequence. I split my G/E team of 4 up the day prior to send 2 of them for pre-rigging. Most of the pre-rigging was spent on blacking out the pool. On the day, we continued to black out the pool and then blacked out all the windows. Once we got our "base" made, we began to light. I used a 1.2 PAR HMI shooting through a 20'x20' half grid (folded up to 20'x10') as our sun. Our key light was a 1k Baby with FCTB bouncing off a 4x4 beadboard. We used an industry standard fog machine, the name of which is escaping me. I think it was a 12AMP fogger; Jarrod would know. To make moving the camera easy, I used a Matthews Intel-A-Jib hard mounted to a doorway dolly on track. This allowed me to float the camera over the water instead of going handheld, preventing any risk of me slipping with the camera. Plus, it smoothed out all of my camera movement! :) Joe would operate the dolly while I operated the head/jib in the water. This set up proved to be super helpful with getting the various angles we needed. The fog was so thick that the color temperature of the 1.2 HMI went closer to 4300K, so we regelled the 1K Baby accordingly. We were able to set up, shoot, and tear down in a 12 hour day with 4 hours of pre-rigging the day before. I'm beyond proud to have had Jarrod and Joe work with me to attain some marvelous results. I'm doing a similar set up like this again on a feature in three weeks; I'll share photos from that too! I hope this is helpful! Let me know if I need to elaborate on anything.
  48. 1 point
    To get keep this thread rolling here is a repost from another thread "Getting A Similar Look to This Scene from Grand Budapest Hotel." Gareth Daklin-Wren, on 08 May 2016 - 01:06 AM, said: Any thoughts on keeping that look consistent with changing color temp and weather over multiple days? A couple of tungsten 1Ks and an open face 650 won’t be enough to establish continuity between shots over several days unless you can gel the sliding glass doors with an 85/ND9 gel and tent the outside of the doors with a large 12x12 solid. When shooting interiors with windows you have two basic problems: color temperature and the extreme contrast between the interior and exterior. Without either gelling the windows or substantially boosting the light levels inside, when you expose for your talent, your white curtains, which are being backlit by the exterior light, will blow out. If you expose for your white curtains to hold detail, your talent will be underexposed and become a near silhouette and those dark wood kitchen cabinets will become a black hole. Without gelling the windows to 3200K, using 3200K balanced lights doesn’t make a lot of sense. Balancing tungsten to 5500K is not very efficient because full color temperature blue correction gel (Full CTB) cuts the output of the light by 70% in converting it to 5500K. A 1k light becomes a 300W 5500K light when you put Full CTB on it. The output you get after correction will not be enough to light your talent with the windows uncorrected. Covering the windows with a combination 85/ND9 gel will convert the daylight coming in the windows to 3200K so that you can use your tungsten lights at full strength, and it will knock down the level of your white curtains by three stops, so that your tungsten lights will be more effective at reducing the extreme contrast between the windows and the interior. But, where a roll of 85/ND9 gel will set you back $140.00, it will be expensive and time consuming to gel sliding class doors of that size. Since it is a long scene that will be shot over several days, you will also need to control the daylight hitting the glass doors from the outside. That’s where the 12x12 tent outside the doors comes in. It will keep direct sun from hitting the doors so that only the “sky shine”, which is pretty consistent throughout a day, will be lighting the backside of the white curtains. But, since there is always the possibility that you will get a mix of sunny and overcast days, I would recommend that you use an HMI outside to throw your own consistent light on the white curtains from outside. The alternative approach is to use daylight balanced fluorescent or LED fixtures inside. A good example of this approach is an American Experience program titled “The Most Dangerous Women in America” about Typhoid Mary that I lit for PBS. For part of her life Typhoid Mary was quarantined on an island in New York's East River. Typhoid Mary in quarantine on an island in New York's East River. Note the view out the window of the East River shoreline at the turn of the century. Because New York’s East River today looks nothing like it did when she was in quarantine, we used a 30' blowup of a picture of the East River at the turn of the century rigged outside the windows of a house in Arlington MA. We wanted to overexpose the exterior by one stop so that it would look realistic and hide the fact that the exterior was a blow-up. As you can see in the production still of the exterior of the actual location used for the quarantine island, we rigged a solid over the porch windows and the blow-up to keep the sun off both. That way we could light the blow-up and interior so that it remained consistent even though the sun moved on and off the porch in the course of the day. To take the edge off the blow-up, we used a single scrim outside the window to help throw it out of focus. The actual exterior of Mary’s cottage was the backyard of a house in Arlington Ma with a 30’ blow up of a picture of New York’s East River shoreline at the turn of the century. To maintain continuity between shots, we brought a 4kw HMI Par in a window on one side of the room as a sun source and a 1200 par through a window on the other side as a northern light source. We powered both heads off a dryer plug in the laundry room of the house using a 60A transformer/distro. The two 2.5k Par lights used outside to light the blow-up were powered by a modified Honda EU6500is through a second 60A transformer/distro. Since the Honda EU6500is could be placed right on the lawn, we were saved from running hundreds of feet of feeder back to a tow generator. Use this link for more production stills of PBS and History Channel historical documentaries where I took a similar approach. Guy Holt, Gaffer, SreenLight & Grip, Lighting Rental & Sales in Boston
  49. 1 point
    All I can say is that I tried very hard to not apply modern aesthetic sensibilities and to put myself back in the mindset of someone making a movie in the 1960's.
  50. 1 point
    There are many pages on the internet that can tell you about interlaced-scan video -- here is one example: http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/24p_in_FCP_nattress.html But I think the "video" look is more related to the higher motion sampling rate -- 60X per second -- combined with a lack of shutter, so no temporal gaps in the motion. This gives the moving image a "live" look like it is happening right now in front of the camera, sort of fluid-looking and a little bit smeary. 24 fps with a half-shutter creates more of a steppy, strobing motion. It's not a question of good or bad, obviously it could be argued that it would be better to have a higher sampling rate for motion, it's mainly a matter of conditioning. I have a theory that the more "hyper-real" the process becomes, the more it makes the fakery of fiction look obvious, sets look like sets, costumes look like costumes, and actors look like actors. This is one reason why these more immersive processes work well for IMAX-type nature documentaries where everything IS real in front of the camera. It suggests that one solution to high frame rate / high resolution / high dynamic range / 3D processes will partly just to be more perfectionist about what goes in front of the camera. But it does imply that 24 fps has the effect of enabling that "willing suspension of disbelief" that we talk about by giving everything a certain motion cadence that moves it from the strictly realistic, like a filter over reality.
  • Create New...