Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/18/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    I read your very negative view of what I said. I still stand by it. Encouragement and insights are the way to help Students. Telling someone they can do it and it will require hard work is going to have a much better chance of success. And, as far as attacking I think you are attacking me. I was simply making a statement that I felt is important to state. It's like when I go to church and the preacher is yelling fire and brimstone and you will burn in hell at the depth of Dante' Inferno. (You have to read this book to get the full impact of what I am saying) At any rate all the damnation the preacher goes on about and there is nothing about the greatest universal love and forgiveness! So, with all the hell fire flying around I say unto you most solemnly, Praise and encouragement goes a long way in developing new talent. 🙂
  2. 3 points
    Recent Kodak Post https://nofilmschool.com/2016/06/be-filmmaker-not-video-maker-interview-kodak-president-motion-picture-and-entertainment?fbclid=IwAR1i2TAiOfoSeOY4yt17e8ZvzZTB6PuA4far0zPSpiUYlrCN2fH5wnNBGEA
  3. 2 points
    Again proof you know nothing about this subject. Many top filmmakers on here with multiple feature credits in theaters around the world, have agreed with my statement that modern filmmaking is a job of producing, more than anything else. film·mak·er /ˈfilmˌmākər/ noun a person who directs or produces movies for the theater or television.
  4. 2 points
    The film and TV industry isn't like going to college, you will find all sorts of negative forces going on, as well as positive ones. Phil points out the downsides, which is only fair, you will find praise, but don't always expect it to be genuine. There can be all sorts of politics going on that you're not aware of. All you can do is be upbeat and positive, regardless of what's going on, even on a cold wet day, with the rain running down your neck.
  5. 2 points
    You can't possibly rely on a video image as a reference for film exposure- you have no idea how much gain is being applied to the signal for a start. You must learn how to use a meter properly. A DSLR may help a bit, but again the way it responds to light isn't quite the same as film.
  6. 2 points
    A) No B) Steadiness is better with 35, cameras with register pins provided. Unsteadiness is distributed over a longer piece of film holding the image. Additionally, positioning errors are less magnified from 35, equal screen sizes compared. C) Dangerous ground for answering; some would speak of a typical 35 look but could never define it clearly. What we can do is divide the historical development into distinct optical and presentational periods. The pioneers, mostly trained photographers or vaudeville entrepreneurs tried out everything thinkable. With films from between 1888 and 1928 speed is erratic, aspect ratios wild, lighting chaotic, lenses everything from two- to six-elements systems. A certain standard had come along with the Tessar lens, orthochromatic raw stock, the 3-to-4 image aspect ratio, and carbon arc lamps. Then the talkies cemented frame rate, camera movements, indoor lighting level, normal focal length a little shorter. The next period must be labeled color with the inlay of the série noire, both streams in the light of high-intensity carbon arcs. Modern documentary production established itself during the thirties. The last major change to the 35 look came with wide screen presentation, xenon arc light, and coated lenses throughout. 16 to 35 was done since 1923 but Super-16 was not practised until 1970. You cannot play 16 as big as 35. When a 16 original is enlarged to 35 grain is, too. As a matter of fact today’s colour stocks are more finely grained than the films of the fifties, Kodachrome being the exception that proves the rule. The worst time in terms of colours and pictorial quality were the late seventies. Lighting practice got a little sloppy then.
  7. 2 points
    Yep it is mandatory to consult the person actually doing the vfx. But you still need to know how do the tracking for the different style of shots if the vfx person can't be on the set to supervise the vfx shoots to ensure that they are done correctly. Yes it is usually (though not always) possible to get somewhat good or at least usable results even if the vfx plates are badly shot but it will require A LOT more work. Basically if a well shot vfx shot could be finished in 1 hour in post the badly shot one can take anything from 5 to 20 hours to do. Even 100 hours or more if one has really screwed up on set. The challenging thing is you may not know whether you have screwed up or not until the post persons tell you so much better to plan these things beforehand to save everyones work :) in the case of vfx the fix it in post may mean saving 10min on the set but doing 100 hours more work in post to fix the shot... if talking about two dimensional tracking one needs at least one tracking point for being able to track pan and tilt and one additional point to be able to track roll (rotation). Then it is possible to track a flat background plate or other element to the same distance than the marker was on set. Longer distance than the marker can usually be somewhat faked manually. if you have a flat background plate which changes its angle during the camera move (2.5d tracking) (like a text which is projected on a wall the camera passrs horizontally) then you normally need at least three to four markers depending on how you do it in post. This can also be done with planar tracking which tracks the surface texture and shapes of the area pointed to it instead of using normal point tracking. Planar tracking generally needs a large enough distinctive plane it can follow which has surface texture on most of the area so for example a normal wall with wallpaper might do but a featureless piece of greenscreen may not. Planar tracking is often used to fix shots where the point trackers were incorrectly placed and thus unusable. 3d matchmoving is needed if you need to attach cg elements to the camera move so that there is very noticeable perspective/parallax change and the cg elementd need to replicate that change too. You have to basically track the 3 dimensional path of the camera to replicate the camera move afterwards in the cg program to be able to get the same camera move to the cg elements. This is very distinctive of the normal approach of tracking because you are not following a photographed single markers path but are using dozens og tracking points which the algorithm uses to calculate how the camera originally moved in three dimensional space. This is a very challenging type of tracking to do without experience because it can fail completely if there is not enough points or the points are not constant in certain parts of the move (covered temporarily by the actor etc) and it is challenging to get enough tracking markers available if shooting greenscreen. Modern trackers can use both point and planar trackers for matchmoving so you can normally use most of the fixed objects in the shot for tracking. This is the type of tracking where you need to have lots of parallax tracking points on different distances from the camera to be able to track the shot and you need a lot of markers as well. You can use green painted pieces of kapa cardboard to host markers if the are needed on different distances. Easier to control shadows than with cloth. Point tracking generally works best by locking to a 90 degree or sharper angle corner of high contrast difference. That is why the traditional cross marker has evolved, it has lots of 90 degree high contrast corners to use. Another good marker type is a triangle which is more seen on matchmoving markers but can be used for normal tracking as well. It has the advantage of being a bit easier track if its blurred. With greenscreen and basic tracking you can often place the markers outside the actors movement area so that they can be just masked out easily without rotoscoping. If doing matchmoving I advise shooting about 20% wider so that there is unused extra area on the sides which is cropped in post and you can place as many markers than you can fit there to be sure the shot does not fail
  8. 2 points
    I used to worry about this stuff a lot, but frankly, on the odd occasion I get to work with proper crew, I take the position, without wanting to seem arrogant or unilateral, that it's their job to support me and we'll do it the way I want to do it. I'll absolutely take suggestions, this is not a dictatorship, but if the results aren't right, I'll be the one who'll be unpopular, so I'm not going to be told how to do it by someone who won't be held responsible later. This may slow you down, because other people may not be completely familiar with your working practices, and you just have to live with it. But frankly, there's a lot less uniformity of approach than most people seem to think there is. If you were walking onto a TV show that's been shooting for years and intending to take an unusual approach, that might be a bit of a problem, since you'd be throwing a stick into the works of a possibly well-oiled machine and risking inconsistency with the stuff that had already been produced. Much more likely, though, what you'll be doing will be mostly within the normal spectrum - there are only so many ways to direct a crew to create a shot. Many people think that there's only one way to run a crew. There isn't. There's lots, and anyone who's convinced that a one-true-technique exists is operating from a position of inexperience themselves. As I say, don't come off as arrogant. Aim, perhaps, for politely assertive. Filmmaking is a team sport and it's important to build that team, but at the end of the day if someone else thinks they know how to do it better, they're free to apply for your job. Personally, I made the mistake of being far too nice about this sort of thing early on, and it cost me dearly. Whatever you do, do not go to this with an insecure mindset. Someone asked you to do it because they like your style, whatever that means. They don't want you to subvert that to the whim of other crewmembers.
  9. 2 points
    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.
  10. 2 points
    When I do DIT gigs on big shows, I like to: 1. Have enough media to make it through a full day. Most productions I've been on don't do this, but it's nice to have the cards as a third backup while the transfer to post happens. 2. Shotputpro with a checksum to two drives simultaneously for an instant backup. The nice thing about shotputpro is that it can transfer to two drives in the same amount of time that it takes to transfer to one. If you go from card to drive1 and then from drive1 to drive2, that will take twice as long. Most shows will have a big raid on set for the whole show, and then portable drives with enough space for one day of shooting, which get driven back and forth to the post-facility. Most post houses have some kind of big fancy media server, so once footage gets into their system and verified, I consider it safe. But we still keep that on-set RAID just in case post's building burns down or something. As far as verifying transfers go: shotputpro will verify that what's on the card is now on the hard drive. It does not verify that the footage on the card is right and proper. Every once in a while, a clip will get messed up if the camera shut off in the middle or something. Sooooo, after a transfer is done, I usually dump all the footage into tentacle sync studio and scrub through everything real fast. I find tentacle sync to be the fastest way to do that, with the added bonus of being able to check timecode real fast on multi-cam shoots. For personal projects, I never do DIT in the field. I just make sure to have enough media for a full day. Then I have a 16TB RAID in RAID 5 at home, dump to that and call it a day. If it's an extra important project, I'll buy a cheapo USB 4TB single drive and double it to that. I've also set-up some media servers for small production companies, and in that situation, the I've found the cheapest way to do it is find an old iMac or something that they're not using anymore, use that as the server using apple's built in file sharing system (you'd be surprised how well that works). Then get a pair of identical RAID drives, something big, like an 8-bay 32TB. Share one of the RAIDs on the LAN, then do scheduled nightly backups to the other RAID. I used a program called carbon copy cloner for that. It's nice because it will hang onto old files for a while until the backup drive fills up, kinda like how Apple's time machine works. So if someone accidentally deletes a project file or something it can save your ass. There might be a more turn-key solution for that out now-a-days. I set up those systems a while ago, and at the time, that was the cheapest way I could figure out.
  11. 2 points
    I mean let's face it, how many people here are funding their own feature film for theatrical release? :crickets: If you're out making short films for youtube, vimeo and social media, who really cares what ya shoot them with. If you're out making something that could be seen on a big screen, in a theater, that's a judgement on your skills as a filmmaker in front of your peers, then ya maybe you should think twice. Do you shoot with what everyone else shoots with or do you shoot in a way that looks and feels different.
  12. 2 points
    I've said it before... The people who are often most vocally in support of film are generally those who do not have to be in any way concerned over paying for it, or at the very least whose budgets easily accommodate it. If you are working in circumstances where you don't have to own the gear, you have assistants to deal with all the gear, you are being treated as a valued client by a lab and transfer house who express through all your work and take great care over it, and you are working with them for weeks on end, that is a very easy set of circumstances under which to like film and advocate for film. If it's all on you and your bank account, it's a lot less easy to like. The sad fact is that the second the budget becomes a concern, almost any production is probably better advised to spend that budget on production design, lighting, and time. Too many smaller-scale productions make huge sacrifices to afford film and end up with wonderful, high dynamic range, wide colour gamut images of nothing very special.
  13. 2 points
    It takes more skill to make an indie film than a big budget studio picture. Where a Hollywood production can throw money at a problem, an indie production must work smart. I have started this thread as a place where we can share indie tricks-of-the-trade for realizing big budget production values on a modest budget. Or, as Phil Rhodes so eloquently put it in a recent thread “by the application of hard-won and exquisitely-realized skill.” Posts to this thread should not herald DIY lights, nor lighting a set with practicals alone. The emphasis should be on FILM CRAFT using a basic tool kit that can be carried in a 18’ rental box (say a 3-5 Ton Grip & Electric Pkg.) and powered off the wall or off of putt-putts (no diesel tow plants.) With the newest camera systems that are capable of a fourteen stop exposure range and ASA sensitivities of 1600 without grain you shouldn’t need anything more to get decent production values if you know what you are doing and willing to work hard. I will start it off by re-posting here my post from the thread “Night Lighting - Balloon VS Dino/Wendy's” (http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=70842.) This thread is for those productions for which $1500 for a balloon light or a generator to power a Wendy light is simply not in the budget and they have to figure out how to accomplish the same look for a lot less. For example, I would say the smart indie alternative would be shoot his wide establishing shots dusk-for-night and only his close coverage night-for-night. Dusk-for-night, is an important technique for indie filmmakers to learn because it is a means of obtaining expensive looking production values for very little money. Dusk-for-night uses the fading daylight as an ambient fill to gain a base line exposure in wide establishing shots without using a big source like a balloon light. Typically it is intercut with closer framing shot night-for-night to create a realistic night scene. The advantage to shooting dusk-for-night over day-for-night (the other low budget alternative to expensive night-for-night cinematography on a large scale) is that if you are shooting a house or city street you can incorporate set practicals like window or porch light, car headlights, or even streetlights or raking moonlight in a wide establishing shot. But in order to get the balance right between your lamp light and the fading daylight requires the right location and careful planning. For example, the key to success in shooting the house pictured below dusk-for-night is choosing the right location. To get the subtle separation of the night sky and trees from a dark horizon, you don’t want to shoot into the after glow of the setting sun. Instead you want to find a location where you will be shooting into the darker eastern sky. With dusk-for-night, you have maybe a thirty-minute window of opportunity after the sun has set to shoot the wide master before the natural ambient light fades completely so you have to have everything planned out, rehearsed, and ready to go. In order to get the balance right between the practicals and the ambient dusk light in the limited time you have to shoot the establishing shot, you have to start with larger fixtures and be prepared to reduce their intensity quickly. For instance if you want the glow of an interior practical light raking the lace curtains in a window, start with a PH213 in the practical and 2k Fresnel raking the lace curtain. Wait until the ambient dusk level outside has fallen to the point where the balance between the natural light and your lamp light looks realistic and then roll. To get a second take, open the camera aperture a half stop and drop a single in the 2k head, dim down the PH213, and wait again until the ambient dusk level outside has again fallen to the point where it looks realistic and then roll. If you continue in this fashion with nets after you have exhausted your scrims, and a PH212 when the dimmed PH213 starts to look too warm, you will be able to get multiple takes out of the diminishing dusk light. Likewise with a streetlight or moonlight raking across the front of the house. To create a moon dapple on the front of a house against a night sky, you will need a good sized HMI set on a high oblique angle so that it will rake across the front of the house. Break it up with a branch-a-loris and wait. When the ambient level of the dusk sky has fallen to the point where it looks realistic against the moonlit house and the practical lit interior - roll. You can even add a car pulling up to the house, but you have to be prepared and have enough manpower standing by to dim the practicals, net the lights, and scrim the car’s head lights very quickly. The final touch is to use a graduated ND filter on the lens to darken the sky and balance the camera between daylight and tungsten so that the ambient dusk light filling the shadows is cool and the practicals and tungsten lights motivated by them remain warm but not too warm. Once dusk is past, you shoot the close coverage night-for-night when a package consisting of what you can run on a portable generator will suffice. If you parallel two of the Honda EU7000is generators for 120A output, you will be able to use a 6k HMI for your moonlight at dusk on top of a sizeable tungsten package to light the interior of a house to a high level to match the daylight. For example, the scene below takes place in the middle of a near vacant parking lot of an all night convenience store. The establishing shot of the brightly lit convenience store situated in a wide-open expanse of a empty parking lot at night was shot dusk-for-night because the production didn’t have the resources to light up the parking lot and building to separate it from the night sky. Close coverage was then shot night-for-night with nothing more than a single modified 7500W Honda EU6500is and a small tungsten package of 1ks and 650w Fresnels. Left: Close coverage shot night-for-night. Center: Transformer/Distro provides 60A/120V circuit from Honda EU6500 and compensates for voltage drop over long cable run to set. Right: Operating the Honda EU6500 from behind the grip truck at a distance was all the blimping required to record clean audio tracks. With no building or other sound barrier within a reasonable distance to block the sound of the generator, Gaffer Aaron MacLaughlin put it behind their grip truck as far from set as possible. This was only possible because he used a transformer to step down the 240V output of the generator, and in the process compensate for the voltage drop they experienced over the 500’ cable run to set. Operating the Honda EU6500 from behind the grip truck at a distance was all the blimping required to record clean audio tracks. Guy Holt, Gaffer, Screenlight and Grip, Lighting rental and sales in Boston.
  14. 2 points
    If you like grain , then use BW stock. Color film does not produce the same grain structure as BW film. You can add digital grain to color converted to BW, but it is not organic and is more like a grain screen that is the same all over the image. For BW panchromatic shooting you can get by with a yellow, orange and red filter. Unless you need a green for foliage or skin tones. I like the orange filter as an all rounder. This was shot with an orange filter on a monochrome sensor.
  15. 2 points
    Very few people have the talent, ability and dedication to 24x7 learning and practice that it takes to become a moviemaker, or work in any art form. Probably the first thing to find out is if this craft is for you. Doing something as a hobbyist is not the same as getting paid to produce something that others value enough to pay for it (doing it as a profession). You can choose to be a Van Gogh and die peniless without ever having achieved any appreciation for your work, but that is not a viable option for most. Enjoying movies and knowing all about them and talking about them is not the same as making movies. Making movies is not the same as making good movies. Being in school is not the same as being in the working world. In school you pay them. In the working world they pay you. There's a science and an art to most challenging professions. To succeed (that is to make a living at it) you need to be well versed in both. You need to get way ahead of the learning curve so you stand out to those who pay you for your work. You also need the ability to handle people, bosses and peers.
  16. 1 point
    oh ok I didn't know it was a live ,multi camera shoot.. then I think it looks great under the restraints .. a lot better than some big budget productions,.. that are massively over lit..
  17. 1 point
    Hiya very sorry for my late reply. Really appreciate all of your helps with the lighting techniques. But actual shoot was like in two days after I posted so I didn't get to consider any of the suggestion I have been given. Still helps alot with my upcoming shoots 🙂 . By the way for this table scene I ended up using only two 120d with softbox. One directly on top and the other as kinda key for the girl. Thank once again! (WIP)
  18. 1 point
    We're getting into left-brain/right-brain sort of territory here, the difference between becoming a successful independent filmmaker in terms of career versus becoming a good director artistically. I have no advice on the former, I can only give advice on the later.
  19. 1 point
    Reels. intermediate and print stock is normally delivered in certain length rolls (normally 2000 feet I think) so it was necessary to do the audio work and printing in the same length chunks or shorter to be able to handle it easily
  20. 1 point
    For about ten years I had a sideline working on my own with small business, installing accounting systems and databases and desktop publishing. Doing the job was the easiest part, selling the job, and collecting the money was the hardest. At the same time my day job was working for a corporation where they took care of all the business end and left me alone to do the part of the work I enjoyed. Maybe that's why the studio system did such great films, and almost everything I've seen out of Hollywood the last few years, including award winning movies, just seems sub-standard. The studio took care of the business side, letting the directors concentrate on the art.
  21. 1 point
    as for encouragement, try to get mentors you can learn from a lot and try to get in other filmmakers/students projects to learn how they do things and how many different ways there is to cleverly solve on-set problems in time when they arise. Of course do everything included in your school program but you need to do lots of extra as well to have better chances to get forward. maybe 3 or 4 times more than the school requires. Always try to get on set of higher end productions than your current level to continuously learn from people who are much more experienced than you. You will also get more important contacts that way. sometimes you need to do very tough decisions. like sometimes needing to decide do you want to graduate in time or at all or do you want to do movies for living and will need to give up the school degree temporarily or permanently to be able to make a living in the film industry if your best change to get there arises. I personally had to do that decision years ago and had very little time to choose. would work in some other industry by now if have chosen to finish the school like everyone else did.
  22. 1 point
    Hi there, Over the last few years I've developed a system to match cameras with color science, specifically matching digital footage to film. I recently finished a quite heavy project attempting to emulate 5219 with the Alexa, and I'd like to share it with you and hear what you think. I wrote a few words about my findings and thoughts from the process for those interested in the topic, as well as put some side-by-side images comparing film and Alexa after the color science has been applied. Here's a link to the post: ARRI Log C | Kodak 5219 I'm also interested in hearing your opinions on, and knowledge of, the use of similar color science within the industry in general. Are some of you using similar techniques already? I read that they used Steve Yedlin's display prep on Last Jedi to match digital shots, but haven't been able to find much info elsewhere on the application of such tools. Would you find creating film-like looks for digital capture a desirable trait or prefer clean Log C as a starting point for grading?
  23. 1 point
    Shot on a BOLEX H16 REFLEX, using a single zoom lens (ANGÉNIEUX 12-120MM). This was my first time shooting 16MM, or any film (print or motion) in any capacity. Stock: KODAK VISION3 500T Pre-Pro: I storyboarded meticulously and frequently went over the edit in my head in order to weed out any unnecessary shots. I finished the film in 4 roles (100ft) Exposing: Using a light meter I exposed the film about 1 stop over, so for 500 I read for 250 (200 whenever possible). I'm still learning how to properly use my meter, so I used my BMPCC's histogram to checkover my readings. Despite that I bracketed for safety and took notes along with my thoughts on what I expected from each shot, based on intuition. (Note: my notes were spot on). No push/pull on the interior shots. The exterior shots were pulled 2 stops, but only because I forgot to dial in my exposure (brain fumbled due to doing all tasks other than the acting). However, it seemed to work out for the story, that the colors were a bit washed out, and milky comparatively. Gaffing: I relied mostly on my eye for natural light + practicals, letting the light pass through several mediums (furniture, clothing, floors etc.) before hitting the actress because I'm keen to the "complexity" it gives. Because of that I did not light specifically for the face, I allowed just enough light to hit the talent. If those weren't doing what I needed them to I mended them using bounce boards, flags, curtains. The only additional light used was a single 650W MOLE RICHARDSON "TWEENIE" (used to mimic daylight, sunset, lamps) and I used a FLASHPOINT photography light to give me stops in the ambience at the door scene (:20 second mark). Post: Processed at Metropolis Post at 2K. I graded and edited in Premiere Pro (I'm not yet skilled in using DaVinci for color). The grading process took 3 passes, in each pass I learned something new pertaining to color curves, waveforms etc. All in all I ended up scrapping 6 shots due to underexposure and my inability to recover them to my taste in the grading process (as I expected from my notes). Takeaways: I definitely feel like I've graduated to the next level in cinematography because of this experience with film. I know that I need to study up on how to use a light meter to expose and how to properly read information coming from my light sources. And that, SET DESIGN is key. I spent nearly 45min-1hr for each setup on making sure the set design corresponded with my compositions. Also, investing time into your set ups is key. I would say this produced my best work to date because of how meticulous I had to be with everything, this is mostly because every time I rolled I was spending money, that I honestly did not have (it worked itself out). Future: I can honestly say I prefer film to digital, whenever possible, because I'm sensitive to color & texture. I feel that with film the colors and textures have a density to them, akin to oil paintings or whole milk as oppose to 1% or skim milk. I prefer that. I will try to shot more of my shorts on film mostly because I do not shoot as much as I should, and thus could feasibly save up for the next one. Tips: For anyone looking to shoot film for the first time, I cannot understate the value of the Internet, and asking questions. I did alot of reading months prior, and would always seek out videos of different film stocks to get a feel for what characteristics they have. I learned how to load (and borrowed) the Bolex from a 1st AC friend of mine, and learned what to expose for and the pushing/pulling process from the DP's I've worked under. Due to VIMEO compression, here is an album of screen-grabs: https://imgur.com/a/gr4hTxG
  24. 1 point
    Why? It's either going to work or it's not. We've bought plenty of them - DLT4000 (at least three), DLT7000, DLT8000 (2 of these), DLT80, LTO2, LTO4, LTO5, LTO6, LTO7. All used. All have made hundreds of tapes with no issues. All tapes verify correctly, and all of the tapes made work on client systems. These are robust machines, designed to run tens of thousands of tapes in their lifetimes. Most of the used ones were upgraded by IT departments when they moved to a newer format, so they've depreciated somewhat and they're just looking to recoup costs. Just look on ebay and you'll find them used and refurbished. You might need to buy an internal drive and a separate enclosure for it to get the best deal, but putting them together is as simple as installing a hard drive. Here are recent sales on ebay: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=lto5+external+drive&_sop=15&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1
  25. 1 point
    I agree. It's not 35mm, so why pretend it is?
  26. 1 point
    No, grain size is a factor because of the smaller S16 neg and if you want a really shallow DoF. You can have a visually great S16 film, but they are different.
  27. 1 point
    Very nice, I liked it a lot. I don't have many notes, it's short, sweet and to the point, just the way I like short films. 🙂
  28. 1 point
    Is this a question related to how much you'd charge to do the work, or how much you'd pay to do the work. I've been paid upwards of $1500 for a 4 minute music video color. For a short film, I'd probably charge roughly the same.
  29. 1 point
    I'd never attempt a full day's shoot with the Alexa without a minimum of 5 batteries of around 150wh each (and then, only if I knew I'd be able to recharge them during the day). The Arri chews through power in order to give the high performance that it does.
  30. 1 point
    wow, you are always so helpful over the years David...and Dom...thank you guys. Super appreciate it.
  31. 1 point
    Edge fogging can impinge into the S16 frame where the N16 frame would be unaffected, as Aapo and I have explained. 400' rolls are on cores so obviously must be in total darkness, but 100' daylight spools may- may - be loaded in subdued light, the clue being in the name, because the flanges are very tight. As you say the Kodak advice is "total darkness" but this has changed. It used to be "subdued light", although I note from my 1980 Kodak field guide that the R-90 and R-190 are not actually referred to as "daylight spools". Of course fast colour stocks are a comparatively recent invention I would still be happy loading a daylight spool indoors, with my back to the light, or somewhere shady outdoors.
  32. 1 point
    OP hasn't reported back since the 10th of May?? Camera sitting on a soft mount on an amusement part ride, held only by straps? A bad trip for camera, camera op. and any and all patrons of the fairground. The idea screams out for a rigid speedrail rig.
  33. 1 point
    Really? Just get out there and make MOVIES :):):)
  34. 1 point
    Hey Filmmakers! This summer i'm officially doing my first job as a paid DoP for a short film (30min approximately) . I've never shot fiction before, i am foremost a Director and Writer for my own films. Although i have studied still photography for a long time, i've only shot and directed my own documentary short film. The film is mostly taking place in one location, a forest with a cabin/small house. I want to create a very unique look for the film, i'm gonna play with mist/rain, shoot early mornings and evenings. I take a lot of inspiration from my favorite filmmakers like Andrei Tarkovsky, Theo Angelopoulos and Yasujiro Ozu. I'm worried that my technical knowledge will set me back during filming, i'm probably gonna have to rely on my camera operator if that ever happens. We're a pretty small team of great guys and girl, so i'm in no worry that we're gonna be in a disagreement in anyway. What are the things that i should avoid? The lightning equipment is not much but i want to achieve a soft looking light in a lot of scenes, i will also list those below with the gear. All tips/comments are welcomed! Camera: Sony PXW-FS7 Lenses: Sony FE 28-135/4,0G - Sony FE 24-70/4,0 - Sony FE 70-200/4,0 - Sigma AF 18-35/1,8 Tripod: Manfrotto 519 Rig: Shoulder rig, Slider Lightning: 1 Smaller LED, 1 Blondie, 4 Flags, 3 Bounce boards, Black wrap, some C-stands
  35. 1 point
    Take care to do your research on what DVD stock you use, some are more stable for archive then others. I'd assume the archive grade is better then HDD but at this point its still a guess. I think the main issue with DVD's is they don't hold much data. A 4TB HDD would take a lot of space if written out to DVDs. Blu Ray of course is better data wise - but I wonder if its more or less robust for archival purposes.
  36. 1 point
    It's great. I'd raise my hat to it, but the hat is protecting me from radiation.
  37. 1 point
    Very nearly, only $316/400'. Less running time, lots more real estate. Now 35mm Ektachrome, projected, that would be something. You could splice up stills camera 135 bulk rolls à la Rosselini. Or just run short takes.
  38. 1 point
    I have seen lots of local early 2000's movies which went through a DI and digital grading and in the recent years the producers/distributors wanted to do a new dcp or hd tv release out of them. that has been proved to be surprisingly difficult considering the early days of DI where they recorded the graded movie directly back to film for striking 35mm prints and then did the tv master on beta or digibeta tapes and that's it (no hdcam sr yet). the graded DPX intermediate was generally not saved (hdd space was expensive back then) and one can't really scan scratched and high contrast print copy to get a 2k quality version of the film for re release. Meaning that one basically does not have any decent quality color graded version of the movie at all in good enough quality and one needs to reconform and rescan and re grade the whole movie from the original camera negatives to be able to make a 2k digital version out of it. AND do the vfx again if there was any. The whole process is extremely cost prohibitive (will cost at least tens of K's to do) and they may give up the idea when hearing how close to impossible it actually is to do for reasonable price. another thing is those rare D6 tapes used for doing the hd masters in the early 2000's. One is extremely lucky to find a working machine to play back those (those are extremely rare, only couple of them in working condition in the whole world) and that is basically the only graded usable master one has apart from the film prints. the alternative is to again rescan and regrade everything. the hdcam sr masters made it a little bit easier because there were actually an existing hd quality tape you could find a working deck for and could actually play it back and get the image out of it. That was very helpful after the erased dpx nightmare and the D6 times 🙂 --- anyway, nowadays it is best to stick to the most useful standard formats I think. Audio as separate .wav or .aiff 24/48 files, the picture in both prores 444 and dpx or tiff files. clean versions without bars and separate subtitle files if available. archive to LTO and do the other copies to the mediums of choice (ssd, hdd, raid, network storage, cloud, etc.) and migrate to new media types as needed.
  39. 1 point
    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.
  40. 1 point
    if it needs to be precise then a depth gauge would do better job I think
  41. 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.
  42. 1 point
    At that budget level I'd second the recommendation for tungsten Fresnel's. Get Arri's if you can, they are built like tanks and last years. On small digital shoots - I find myself using 300w and 650w most often. Dedos are good, but would tend to be a bit more expensive. Budget LED's are hit and miss colourwise - I'd avoid and focus on getting the basics in tungsten. If you need punchy brute force lights DIY halogen work lights can give you a good amount of light for a low price. Not good for direct light, but can be bounced and shaped with flags. Same with PAR64's they can be picked up very cheaply and useful when you need a cheap punchy light to bounce or push through diffusion.
  43. 1 point
    Tarantino used it in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
  44. 1 point
    Personal taste is of course personal taste. My previous comments were a bit blunt.
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    Yuck - bit too magenta for my taste. I wouldn't hold those LUT's (or whatever) as great examples of grading. The photography is good (maybe your responding to that), but for me the colour correction is working against the footage.
  47. 1 point
    You have to imagine sitting in a real room as the sun is setting and then going into twilight to understand the colors of the sun and the sky and how that transforms the room. The sun gets more orange but weaker as it sets so the ambience from the blue sky gets stronger in relation.
  48. 1 point
    Bradford Young has done seriously amazing and beautiful work, I think hes this generations Harris Savides.
  49. 1 point
    Well, I won't get into the discussion about making money for creative people. It's really tough. I won't discuss the sacrifices I've had to make as a creative person. But I can talk about what being an artist is, and the perpetual question of tools and technique. I've known and know quite a few artists, both visual (painting, etching and sculpture) and musical. I haven't known too many filmmakers - in that field I've pretty much been the only person around the place who was into film - as I grew up in a quiet, semi-rural area during my teens, when I got my start. But it's in music, where I've had a lot of interaction with other musicians, I've found a surprising level of rigidity of thought about technique, and what tools you use. Teachers are so often adamant that you have to have a certain set up of your instrument. And play with a certain technique. I always think it's bizarre. I choose the instrument set up I want ... because I want it for a good reason. It's the sound I'm after. I know the music world best (classical) and you know what I've found? The best don't care what tool you use. And you play it with your toes for all they care. It is only the final result they ever care about. The sound. The music. The rest is unimportant .. often just a chasing after vain things. With filmmaking it should be the same thing. The look. The story. Who cares if it was shot on what. So in that sense have a clear idea of what it is you are trying to produce.
  50. 1 point
    I've said everything I could possibly say before, but if you do nothing else, do this. Consider what the maximum possible level of success is. Consider what the likely level of success is. The film industry is extremely competitive, and most entrants fail to make a living. Any kind of living. The modern world is extremely hard on people without lots of money. Passion fades. Financial needs don't. Really, consider whether you want to do this. I would recommend you didn't, as your chances of success are microscopic.
  • Create New...