Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/22/19 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
    I suspect everyone will have a different answer, depending on the type of work that they do. There are two main reasons to use long lenses - you need the magnification and can’t move closer, or you want the compression aesthetics. For documentaries, live events, and multi-cam shooting, you definitely need the reach. For narrative and commercial work, you have more control and aesthetics are more important. I don’t find a 135mm further away to be that aesthetically different from an 85mm up close, but it depends on the situation. If you really need a long lens for a shot, then chances are it will be more in the 300mm+ range. If I need a longer lens than an 85mm, then I’m more likely to be reaching for a zoom lens for versatility. Something in the range of 70-200mm or 85-300mm is more useful to me than a 135mm prime.
  20. 2 points
    Unique is a moving target, and often a Luxury. Kaminski has a very unique eye and a style that is always apparent, but not mimicked or in demand, apparently. But Spielberg likes it and that’s what matters. I don't know anyone who would shoot something that looks like “Crystal Skull” intentionally. Deakins is uniquely talented. He openly posts his setups because you can copy something he did but you can’t “think” like him. And that’s what you’re paying for to get Deakins and why he’s “irreplaceable”. I’ve been gaffing for a DP who’s so good and so specific, he’s just transitioned to directing because he can more fully impose what he wants to do on a project and make the visuals work with the story more completely than he could as a DP. Honestly, unless you work with a very good, successful director who will fight for you as a DP, It’s impossible to get to an irreplaceable status. I may be misremembering, but IIRC Matt Libatique at a Cinematographer’s round table one year, looked at Deakins, Phister, et al and said “Look, we’re all here because of one director.” In the meantime, be agreeable, work hard, test and experiment, and make solid relationships with directors. Tristan
  21. 2 points
    Ursa Mini Pro. Nikon Series E.
  22. 1 point
    I was using him as an example to back up what I said .. the thread is not "who is the best DP in the world "..? Did I say film is not as good as digital.. this is always the defensive argument of the film fanboy.. no ?.. he says that he lights the same .. he is a top DP who is working with both mediums .. if your question is, would I follow his words rather than arm chair pixel peeps on the inter web.. then yes ..a resounding yes..
  23. 1 point
    A 25-ft. roll of Kodak Pan reversal film in Double-Eight cost $2.25 in the summer of 1932, returned as processed 8mm film comprising 4,000 frames. That would be $42.14 as of today. A 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodak Pan reversal cost $6 then, today $112.37, also 4,000 frames. A 100-ft. roll of Kodacolor reversal cost $9 in 1932, today’s $168.55. The first rolls of Kodachrome as Double-Eight cost $3.75 in 1936 ($69.22), a 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodachrome $9 processing and return included ($166.13). https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
  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
    I'm pretty sure they always used telecine machines, which are basically the same process they use today. Back then they did have another machine, which was a projector with a CRT camera built-in, but they were pretty shitty. I doubt any studio vhs masters were done that way. Maybe for the porn industry or some low budget movies, but not the studio films. The telecine machines automatically did the 3:2 pulldown and outputted 29.97i. So basically an IP or IN of the film would be dropped off to a facility with the matching magnetic audio. They would do a scene by scene grade and real-time transfer to a 2" or 1" video tape machine. Then they would transfer the audio separately using "insert" edits on to the videotape. The final tape would have all of the content that would go onto the VHS tape. The duplicating system was quite simple as well, they'd simply had a bunch of VHS machines in a room and load tapes into them. There was a master start button where they would start recording, first black and then it would auto switch to the 2" or 1" master. Over the years, the only major differences is the addition of digital telecine machines and digital video tape machines, which took over in the late 80's/early 90's. High Definition would have come around the same time where they would have made HD masters for SD releases.
  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
    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
  28. 1 point
    Shooting green screen interviews today in a conference room at a certain software giant's building in Redmond, WA. What are you working on today? Upload a photo with your reply.
  29. 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.
  30. 1 point
    I don't think the rental business has been undercut by owner/operators at all. Professional productions do not rent from owner/operators. They must use rental houses for support and legal reasons. As Denny Clairmont told me, the problem is that with film cameras, they would last 15 - 20 years easily and with digital, you're lucky to get 3 - 5 years out of a camera. Very few rental houses could afford to buy Arricam's and even less could invest in 50 Alexa's when they first came out. Clairmont closed because Denny couldn't justify buying a new fleet of 4k and 8k cameras to stay current. This is the same problem other rental houses are facing with the sub 4k cameras, mainly Alexa's. The other thing is that Arri and Alexa charge exorbitant money for service and the digital cameras have their own host of failure issues; overheating and software/firmware are the most common. Then you have the imager dead pixel mapping failures, which is where many are the Red Dragons are headed. In a few years, the high hour imagers will have dead pixels that can't be remapped. The Dragon initially came out in 2013, so it's 5 years old and where the tech is great, we're seeing more and more cameras failing. We had 2 dead Dragons at our high school and Red refused to service them for less than $5k each. I personally don't think we will see 4k + professional cinema cameras anywhere near the 3k mark anytime soon; C200, C300MKII, C500, C700, FS5, FS7, F5, F55, F65, Venice, Red Dragon, Red Epic X, Arri Alexa XT Plus, Alexa Mini, Blackmagic Ursa mini, etc. These will all hold their values for a long ass time because 4k will become the 'lowest' acceptable quality and stay that way for a long time. I do see the 2.8k Alexa's going for a dime a dozen soon, but sadly most can't capture 2.8k internally without the proper firmware. They will dive to D21 prices eventually, but I think they will hover around $5k as complete packages because things like viewfinders, will hold value. In the end, yes the sub 4k cameras will dive bomb in price, but the 4k+ cameras will retain value. It's actually a buyers market for digital cinema cameras right now and the penglium has been swinging that way for the last few years thanks to companies like Blackmagic, Canon and Sony, releasing some decent lower-end cameras that have excellent quality. It's making the older cameras have less value just due to their age. At the same time, film camera pricing is increasing. Go figure lol 😛
  31. 1 point
    I would never do it unless I really needed the money... or was going into the rental business.. you may not have it for your own shoots and "its a rental don't be gentle "... there is a reason for that saying 🙂
  32. 1 point
    "Anti-drug" shows tend to be either cautionary tales of self destruction like Requiem for a Dream which visually beat you over the head with a hammer in their presentation of the horror of addiction. Or a ridiculous satire like Rules of Attraction that becomes an exercise in patience as you laugh uncomfortably waiting for every character to fail. Euphoria has a distinct approach to it's characters, themes, giving them lengthy cold opens of backstory for context. Even if the episode isn't really about them. Though the central character Rue narrates it, her neutral, nonjudgemental tone is neither for or against the characters behavior. As a viewer, you can easily empathize with the lot of them because the look of the show is intoxicating and draws you in to their world completely. So for that reason, I think it's worth a mention.
  33. 1 point
    Modern Inventors? As in still alive? Garrett Brown. The steadicam! Johan Hellsten. The easy rig! Howard Preston. Someone beat me to it, but nonetheless on the list! Mark Roberts Motion Control. The Bolt Arm! George Lucas. Digital editing. 3D animation. Digital cameras. Did he actually invent these? Not entirely, but he ushered these tools into existence the same way Steve Jobs ushered in the iPod, iPhone, etc.
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    Jaakko patented his optical printer in 1974 so it’s more like 45 years.
  36. 1 point
    "4k" is not really a spec, per se. It's a rough pixel count of only the horizontal component of an image's dimensions, and it can vary. 3656x2664 is 4k as generated by our Northlight scanner for a 4k Academy Aperture 35mm scan. It does 4096 for full aperture, but if you don't include the soundtrack area the file is 3656. I'd respectfully disagree that UHD isn't 4k. I mean, technically, it's not 4000+ pixels across, but it's advertised widely as 4k and it's what people know as 4k. Arguing otherwise is kind of futile since that's what most of the world knows as 4k at this point. Of course, the vertical number is whatever you need it to be to match your aspect ratio. so UHD is 16x9 which is purely a resolution from the video world and doesn't exist in film or photography really. If you scan most non-widescreen motion picture film you're usually looking at 4096x3112 or thereabouts, but I've seen other resolutions as well.
  37. 1 point
    They are all in Instant Light, the book with Tarkovsky's polas. https://www.amazon.es/Instant-Tarkovsky-Polaroids-Giovanni-Chiaramonte/dp/0500286140 Or
  38. 1 point
    I would find a tele zoom more useful especially if it does not breathe much and focuses close. the 70-200 is very useful like others mentioned and for most work it is much faster to use than a tele prime because you can fine tune the framing without moving the camera...
  39. 1 point
    Since there are car headlights involved, you’d be better off shooting dusk for night (magic hour). If you get lucky and it’s overcast, you could do your tighter coverage in daytime where light sources are not in the frame; or silk everything in the coverage to match the soft light of the wide dusk shots. Maybe you could get away with DFN if the car is only pointed right into the lens and the lights go out the moment the car stops, and then the bright headlamp glow could be added in post and hopefully no one will notice that the ground in front of the car isn’t being lit by the headlamps. But any other angle and you’d expect the car headlamps to sweep objects in reality as it pulls up. And in DFN, the real headlamps aren’t going to be strong enough to light anything. DFN works best when the only light source in the scene would be the moon.
  40. 1 point
    Hi Luke, It's a personal decision. Both systems have their benefits and cost the same. For me, as a professional focus puller, the Light Ranger reduced my focus pulling instincts to a playing a video game. Just keep the green bars over the subject. Besides keeping shots sharp, our main duty is to help tell the story. For me, the LR is too distracting to do that. The Cine RT is a brilliant tool that takes the Cinetape to a whole new level of performance. I really like using it and I much prefer it over the LR. The Cine RT is way more simple to set up and is way less fussy than the LR even though the most obvious difference is the Cine RT does not have auto focus. That's fine by me! The biggest difference between the CRT and the Cinetape is that it's wireless and does not have a clumsy display to have to find a place for on the camera. The display/control unit is next to you and you can change settings at will - even when you're rolling. Anyway, the Cine RT works great for me. I hope this helps you with your decision! G
  41. 1 point
    I think everyone is being far too critical. For one thing, this is a real location and not a set, unlike many of those Disney Channel shows. Second, it’s a cliche that comedy has to be lit brighter and flatter. Third, it’s not easy to make a real fluorescent-lit high school look interesting. Having a bigger lighting package doesn’t solve the problem that if you see the ceiling in the background then the background is mainly going to have to be lit by those ceiling fixtures and all you can do is play with the foreground.
  42. 1 point
    That's true, Adam. Excellence is as rare as it ever was. In terms of popular music at least, the music was definitely better in the Beatles day than today. I think that's beyond dispute. Interesting to speculate on why that might be. Something to do with the general tone of society now. A lot of the films, let's take for example music videos, now have a continually dystopic theme to them. They tend not to vary from that. Sad, dejected faces. Hopelessness. A sense of energy and life is needed in art - not all the time, but most of the time. Creative works should be like a kind of food. Maybe in a way a kind of spiritual food. Are these works usable, valuable, in some sense? Do people derive something useful from them? Are their lives somehow enriched, even in a tiny way, by them?
  43. 1 point
    David, while you are correct that it is not necessary to be either an expert or likeable in order to be right, being likeable has other benefits. On a forum like this, where most members will carry on conversations over a period of months or even years, and yet never meet each other, it is only natural that people will be curious about each others backgrounds and experience. Knowing what experience informs the attitudes of our fellows makes it easier to understand their views, and helps to avoid unnecessary arguments, particularly in a medium where nuance and tone are hard to convey. You evidently have strongly held opinions on a variety of subjects, and you appear to be well informed, but it's also true to say that you are extremely aggressive in your tone when responding to others with whom you disagree, and you seem very willing to attack the poster, rather than the post. That's not good for anyone involved. May I suggest that we turn the heat down under this conversation, and keep it friendly.
  44. 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.
  45. 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).
  46. 1 point
    A repair shop might be able to take on the task of recelling the power supply for you. Or you could alternatively make up your own external power supply and plug it into the camera. This camera was the top of the line and 4rth version of the FAIRCHILD Double 8mm Single-System Sound film cameras. The earlier ones were the single lens model, the triple lens turret version, and the 10mm to 30mm reflex zoom lens version. They all ran at 24fps for magnetic sound recording on pre-striped Double 8mm movie film, and the non-magazine versions held 50ft spools. The only real advantage to the FAIRCHILD 900 was the ability to use the magazine for extended filming. You'd have to locate Double 8mm film in bulk to spool down your own 200ft lengths of film if you actually want to shoot that much. It would be only in silent of course, since pre-striped mag filmstock has long been discontinued. Although, it is possible, though expensive, to have silent stock pre-striped by someone having the capability, or get the gear together to do it yourself. While an otherwise nice looking camera, if you are truly into filming in Standard 8mm, I would consider any one of the nice BOLEX H-8 to H-8RX cameras out there which allow spools of 25ft, 50ft and 100ft in Double 8mm. Alternatively ELMO made a nice Double 8mm that also has a magazine option for holding 100ft spools, with the main camera only using standard 25ft spools. Lots to think about for sure, if you want to get that 900 model into a user.
  47. 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.
  48. 1 point
    I've used the CP2's with film cameras, but I'm not much of a fan due to the cost. It really depends on what features you're looking for in a lens? If you want a fast wide angle lens, that's going to cost a lot of money vs a slow longer or standard 24, 35, 50mm lens. I could only afford what I bought, which were the Rokinon Xeen's and let me tell ya, nobody can tell what they are with the final footage on film. People spend so much time focused on glass, they kinda forget that most glass is fine. I had some college kid argue with me about my recently serviced Optar primes "not being good enough" for his student film. It's that kind of attitude which kills me. I'd rather have three lenses that work, for the price of 1 lens that doesn't do anything better, but has a more recognizable brand name on the side.
  49. 1 point
    Got my hands on the legendary David Lean lens, a 500mm (or 482mm if pedantic) telephoto that was designed by Panavision specifically for the long shot of Omar Sharif entering from a mirage in the far distance and riding on a camel all the way into a close shot. One of the greatest telephoto shots (and entrances) in cinema. And here's the lens on my test projector: Minimum focus is 23 ft, which is just about the length of my projection room!
  50. 1 point
    For each location he has to say the entire speech from far to near and then the editor uses the section he wants. But first pre-record the speech and have him sync himself to it by playing it back using an earwig on every take. In post you'd use the single pre-corded take over the entire commercial so the sound is continuous. It takes some practice for an actor to get used to lip-syncing to sound playing back through his ear. And actually if this is the only sound, you could just play it over a speaker but I think an earwig would be better, especially in a noisy location.
×
×
  • Create New...