Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/20/19 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
    You'd have had to shoot from much further away, which I suspect wasn't possible, otherwise you'd have done it for perspective. And look at the design of those windows - especially the upper curved part. If you put the subjects at the center of the windows they're going to have what look like spikes or rays coming out of their heads - it will be as distracting as hell. Your first priority should always be avoiding this type of foreground/background alignment - the wedding photographer's dreaded "Lamppost growing out of head" syndrome.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 2 points
    In your diagram.. you have two lights on the sides, right and left.. on the same axis as the cameras there.. for the over shoulder shots.. I would put the lights on the other side of the line, of the two actors.. each actor will then be "looking towards the light"..for the over shoulder cameras..giving a "nice" modeling light.. rather than a very flat on same axis of camera light.. ie classic interview lighting .. which can also probably give a bit of backlight for your central wide shot on each subject .. if you want it
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 1 point
    Took my meter out... Couldn't help myself. 🙂 "f/3.6 - Not great, not terrible"
  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
    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
  21. 1 point
    I would agree with Robin.. Not only is the window visually screaming to motivate the far side key, but combine that with Robin's other point that keying on the camera side will make it flat. Your dilemma would then be hiding the lights, which is where a menace could come in, if you have the skill/crew for it.. or exposure to the cieling if there are safe rigging points. Do you have a softbox for the aputures? You can also provide a little bit of warmth on the fill side with tungsten. Can't really tell, or time of day, but windows might be blown with just the aputures, especially if softened. Were you wanting the chinaball in frame as a practical?
  22. 1 point
    A) Absolutely not, super 16 has an entirely different look and feel to 35mm. Not only in the grain structure, but also in the field of view. B) For a photochemical process from Super 16 to 35mm, you're looking at doing an A/B roll super 16mm negative cut, which is expensive, very very very expensive. Then doing an optical blow up to 35mm IP. You will then strike an IN with soundtrack in 35mm to which you will strike prints from. Nobody really does Super 16mm negative to answer print with soundtrack anymore. So to add soundtrack, you need to do the more conventional blow up, then IP and IN route, which is very expensive. If you were just shooting 4 perf 35mm, you could add the soundtrack to your answer print, without making an IP or IN, WAY lower cost in the long run. Plus cutting 35mm negative is way easier and cost effective. C) There is magical formula. For me, if you shot 50D and long lenses, you'd probably do OK to mimic what long lenses and 35mm COULD do. However, it would be difficult to do that and make something appealing to watch. Remember, the photochemical process is very expensive. It's far easier to scan your film and record it back to 35mm on the output side. You will have less noise, a crisper image and retain much of the "filmic" value. Where I do love a good photochemical finish, it's become too expensive to do it these days. If you don't care about a 5.1 digital soundtrack, recording back to film is not that expensive.
  23. 1 point
    That said City of God Last King of Scotland Constant Gardener All intercut Super 16 with 35mm and depending on shot size its not always obvious which is which. I saw city of god on 35mm and the mixed formats didn't jump out at me -looked pretty consistent. The lack of sharpness of super 16 is more visible on wider shots - so a film like City of God, shot in bright sunlight, with high contrast images in enclosed locations - its harder to spot the difference between the two formats.
  24. 1 point
    The tokina vista primes are T1.5. They seem pretty nice. Probably a little cheaper to rent if you can find them.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 1 point
    Hi David! I've read just about every page of Ask David Mullen Anything on reduser. I would have asked these questions there, but for some reason my membership hadn't been accepted yet (after creating an account about a yr ago). If I missed these q&a's on there I apologize. My questions are: when you study other cinematographers, how exactly do you study them? When you're looking at their work, what are the things you're looking for and paying close attention to? How do you do a film analysis of their work? Do you take notes? If so, what kind of things are you writing down? If you have questions about something, how do you get those questions answered? And if you have questions about something, generally, what are those questions? I know this is a lot that I'm asking but I'm trying to get a deeper understanding (and a different/new approach) on how to study the works of my favorite cinematographers, and just break down some of my favorite movies in general. I already look at a ton of bts and buy dvds and blurays that offer bts. Other DP's are welcome to chime in also. Thanks!
  28. 1 point
    wow, you are always so helpful over the years David...and Dom...thank you guys. Super appreciate it.
  29. 1 point
    I think that when you are doing moving camera on chroma key, it's important to consult with the person who will be creating the digital FX and composites. Ask them what kind of markers they will need to track the new backgrounds. And, if you really can not consult with your fx artist... Keep in mind that it's best to be able to see at least 2 tracking marks on the green screen at all times. So let this be your guide as to how to space them. Also, the tracking marks are "tracked" by finding contrast in them against the green background, so, if they are also green tracking marks or crosses, they should be of a different brightness to the green screen background. I would think that if you use something like black tape for the tracking marks, they will be easiest to track, but the chroma key will fail around these marks and need small amount of rotoscoping to fix the mask. This still might be preferable if the back ground green goes out of focus and lowers the contrast of the background. If there will be multiple layers of background elements added, then it's time to think about tracking markers placed in front of the green screen on stands (hopefully wrapped in green cloth). Theses should be placed at a distance that will simulate the intermediate background element. If none of this makes sense to you, it is imperative that you consult with your VFX artist before shooting.
  30. 1 point
    "A Film" tends to means to a peace of narrative storytelling where moving images are used. The title of "film" these days is divorced from recording or exhibition technology. "Lets go to cinema to see a digital video file projected" says no-one ever. Most people will us the statement "I am filming" to refer to the recording of moving images. The precise inaccuracy of the way video and film as terms are interchangeable, is really about the way the English language is used in practice. Its less a statement around technology or intent. Now if you excuse me I'll be Hoovering my carpet with my Dyson. My parents call public address loudspeakers "Tannoys", incorrectly all the time. Sometimes the speakers are made by Tannoy but more often then not they are Junk But Loud (JBL etc) Nobody likes a pedant (I have learn't through bitter expereince), even if they are technically correct
  31. 1 point
    There's a danger in accepting any job on a film crew that is a lead role in a department when you've never worked on any set in that capacity for anyone other than yourself. If you're really not qualified to be there, it will be obvious and leaning on the camera operator or gaffer or anyone else is a bad idea. Unless they're a friend who has got your back. Doesn't matter if the position is as the DP, sound recordist, HMU or 1st A.D. When your primary experience is only ever on your own set where you are in charge you're working in a vacuum. You could easily be doing things terribly wrong all the time with nobody around to correct you. So instead of experience, you could be bringing lots of bad habits and dangerous working methods to set and you would never even know. Till the G&E crew starts whispering about you to production. On the other hand, if this short is staffed by 100% newbies then it may be the perfect opportunity for you to learn. Just be aware that a paid DP typically would have years under their belt on multiple crews for different producers and have a good basic knowledge of how a set is safely run and how a shooting schedule, crew and gear package is set up. If you've never been paid to do it before and have never watched a DP work before as a 1st a.c. or operator then you're missing a lot of basic information on set procedure, protocol. By accepting the job, you could be setting yourself up to fail. Or not. If it's all a group of fun friends and low stakes, be safe, be well and have a good time. Just consider these points for the future when a more high stakes position presents itself.
  32. 1 point
    Very pretty - though I must admit that I have started to chuckle ruefully whenever someone talks about something that's clearly very high end and then goes "oh, it was very low budget." One of the things I've discovered having spoken to people about all kinds of productions is that everyone thinks everything is low budget the second they're aware of how much they're spending. I've had that from some of the biggest names in the business.
  33. 1 point
    I used Apple's DVD Studio pro for most of my authoring. In that program, you simply add the titles and tracks then you tell the disk to playback yout track upon disk insert vs the menu. Thus, when you put a disk in the drive, it will playback the track automatically, which is nice. You need some sort of DVD authoring software to make it work. You can put HD material onto a DVD and compress it as .h264. Many BluRay players will play it back as a media disc, rather than a movie disc. Just need to check your players capabilities and make sure the disc is formatted properly for DVD players. However, in this mode you can't autoplay. Like stated above, DVD's are 8 bit 4:2:0 480p Long GOP MPEG 2 files with a maximum of 10Mbps.
  34. 1 point
    I've used them as part of Frame24's film & processing package. They need a minimum of 400ft to develop. Not sure if you can go direct and if they have a minimum requirement. I've found them very efficient, developing and scans were spot on. Developing and scanning took a few days. GaugeFilm also do developing and scanning, but their turn around times are usually longer, about 3 weeks depending on what you want, their website gives details.
  35. 1 point
    Hi, great that you want to process the films yourself. I have to ask, which processing method are you intending to use? Rewind Tank, Spiral Reel etc? Due to the severe age of the film, unless it has been stored frozen since new, it will have severe age fog. The filmspeed will have dropped as well. I wouldn't consider Rewind Processing since residual chemistry would build image density working against you, and you want more precise processing control due to the old nature of the films. I wouldn't attempt reversal processing unless you do a snip test first off each one to see how it responds. If doing a Reversal Snip Test, you only need to remove a short amount, such as a foot or two or less. Just make sure this portion has been exposed. If you can shoot an average scene and include a Gray Card in it, that will help as well, or a Color Chart, or Gray Scale Chart. In the reversal process, pull the First Developer time down from the normal 6 minute (average) range to 2.5 minutes. Make sure to Pre-Soak/Wash your film for a good minute or two before preceeding, actually 5 minutes would be fine. Chances are though, that Reversal Processing will fair extremely poor, with lots of cloudy mottling in the images, low contrast etc, perhaps very washed out density unless you are able to get it down via time and temperature dropping to compensate. Your tests should let you know. Do NOT shoot the entire roll, just the snip test portion. In fact, if you have a subminiature 16mm camera, use that for your tests, or you could use a 35mm SLR type camera, just taping the film to the takeup spool, since your film length is so short, there won't be any real slippage of the film since the sprockets are advancing it, just the tug on the takeup spool. A foot of film should allow you to take at least 3 to 5 shots, fine for this test. You could then, cut each film snip test into 2 segments and store them in 35mm Kodak type plastic film cans since they are dark, seal with tape and mark them as to what they are. This will allow you to conduct a Reversal Process Test of each film and a Negative Process Test. This way, you'll be way ahead and have a good idea how the film is and which way would be best to proceed. For the Negative Process test, I recommend any strong B&W Developer with high contrast similar to KODAK D-19 (ILFORD Phenisol is the equivalent), or a B&W Photo Paper Developer similar to Dektol if nothing else in the higher contrast area is available. Use this for all 3 film types, since it's only to create a B&W Negative of usable density. At least doing Negative, should the films have dropped to a very low filmspeed sensitivity and have severe age fogging, the higher contrast developer will 'clear' up the image somewhat for you, and you can experiment with exposure and processing times. For the Color Reversal ones, it will be tricky here, since these films were made prior to when films were had Prehardened emulsions. So, unless you can chemically preharden them prior to the processing, your best bet is to use a room temperature process. UniColor E-6 3-Step will work fine at room temp. Do NOT go over 80F, stay in the 72F to 75F range, with all liquids, washes etc. Give each film a long presoak of 5 minutes. I also recommend using a B&W Rapid Hardening Fixer in the end for at least 5 - 8 minutes. You can use it to replace the E-6 Kit Fixer. This will insure the emulsion is hardened for later handling protection. Okay, for processing, follow the room temp guidelines.....for all solutions except the First Developer, cut that one down 2/3rds from what is recommended. The First Developer determines the image density (speed) and with the age of the film, not doing so will usually cause the film to look nearly clear as all the silver halides will have mostly converted to black metallic silver, leaving you with not enough silver to create the Positive Image. Once the Bleach converts all this black metallic silver to silver bromide, and is removed by the Fixer...the film will look blank. The goal is to avoid that. Again, testing will be necessary to find the usable range for each film. So keep good notes for yourself. ORWO and SVEMA of that era were made under the regimes of that era, which utilized different color reversal technology, especially the Color Developers. So it would be hard to match without some manipulation. However, this won't apply here since the film is so old and has to be processed with compensation. EKTACHROME color reversal films of this era usually yield a severe green or cyan look with sometimes traces of other colors. These eastern European films will yield a purplish or magenta range, could even be orange. It has to do with their film layers, film technology, and in which direction the dye couplers have faded/failed. Since you stated that you're up for weird color effects, that's what you'll get, if anything. In the end....if Color Reversal doesn't work out at all or anywhere near acceptable for you, the default process for all photographic film is B&W Negative processing. At least from there, you can get something. You could experiment and attempt B&W Reversal processing of these 2 color films, if you wanted to, but I doubt it would be worthwhile. Lastly, now IF for some reason, these films were stored frozen since new....then they would have to be processed more along 'normal' ranges of course. Anyhow, once you have your test results, if unusable at all, make some more, until you get in the range of usability. Then mark you film cans as to how to expose and process, and you'll be all set to shoot. I know it's a bit of work initially, but if you just go ahead and shoot the entire film on something, and can't get anything usable, you'll have just totally wasted your time, defeating the goal of having cheap film to use. I wish you the best of success in your endeavor!
  36. 1 point
    I was just joking about the word "lasered". It did make sense to me though!
  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
    Aapo is right, you really need a depth gauge with a flat backing block in the gate to properly measure and set the flange depth. In theory your method could work, but it does require that the lenses you're using are perfectly collimated (ie back-focus set to the 52.00mm PL standard), and that the ground glass is perfectly set to the same depth as the gate (since you're checking the lenses through the viewfinder not at the gate itself). Then there is the question of how accurately you can judge focus on a wide lens. There may also be play in the lens threads adding further discrepancies. From your measurements, using a test projector, I estimated the 18mm needs to seat about 0.25mm closer, while the 12mm needs to be about 0.20mm closer. The difference of 0.05mm is substantial in terms of flange depth, which we usually try to set within 0.01mm. If you took the camera to a technician (at a rental house service department or repair facility) they could measure your flange depth and ground glass depth very accurately in about 10 minutes. The best way to set it is to machine the material about 0.10 mm under, and then shim back up to within 0.01mm. I'm curious what your "special" little camera is..
  39. 1 point
    basically it gets easier and easier the more standardised and widely used the same technology is outside the very niche film industry. For example the introduction of HDCAM and HDCAM SR (designed for TV use) simplified the post workflows here a lot and enabled making reasonable priced hd masters of the movies for later use. The file based workflows have simplified it even more because basic computer gear can be adapted to work for movie post production use. and LTO for example is used for lots of other uses outside the film industry so there is always a working LTO deck somewhere which can be used if the company's own machine breaks. No more those super rare expensive tape formats with one working machine for each continent... both the availability of the technology is much better but it is much cheaper as well. for example a basic LTO system as a whole is maybe one tenth of the price of what a HDCAM deck would have cost years ago
  40. 1 point
    AH ah ah, that's a good one 😄
  41. 1 point
    https://discoverwestworld.com/ourworld/ I worked four months on this doing additional photography plus one whole episode, there are about three shots of mine here you can see if you dont blink. Four months of shooting 35mm film!
  42. 1 point
    I think you mean change the ISO to 1600... But that said, you are correct about the shutter speed and F stop. And lowering the ISO to 1/2 should add one stop more exposure. But with some digital cameras this will not always be the case. For example, shooting stills with my Canon 5d, when I change the ISO setting, the camera also changes the gain of the signal before recording the frame. So, when I simply lower the ISO by 1/2, such as from 800 to 400, the needed F stop will change from f16 to f11 for example. Here, changing to f11 will double the amount of light reaching the sensor, but the change from ISO 800 to 400 will darken the image by the same amount, and the result is that the image is not "over exposed" but, seems to be exposed exactly the same. Other cameras such as the RED cinema cameras don't change the brightness of the recording with a change of ISO. The recording is the same, only the meta data, or instructions for how to view the image change. And in this case lowering the ISO actually shows an increase in exposure. But in the end, it does change the instructions for the RAW conversion, and if you convert at the ISO settings from the camera capture, the exposures will look the same. But you could, if you chose, change the ISO setting in the RAW conversion software to get a different exposure. With my Canon camera, the ISO setting is not changeable in the RAW processing and the recording has this change baked in. One can still change the "exposure" in RAW processing, but any gains or losses of highlight details will have already been lost. Yup, all this will be too confusing to you, I suspect. So, let's leave the ISO part out of the equation. Let's define "over exposure" or "under exposure" as relative to the chosen ISO setting. And this means to "over expose" by one stop, one would open the iris by one stop from the recommended or metered exposure at a particular ISO. Or to increase the exposure time by one stop, as from 1/60th sec to 1/30th sec. And in this way, you will get the desired result. Under exposure would be just the opposite. Be warned that a lot of what you read in articles etc. about over and under exposure is kind of BS. I remember reading in American Cinematographer about a movie many many years ago that "quoted" the DP as saying that he "under exposed" all the night exterior shots by 2 or 3 stops. But, in reality, he had exposed his film exactly correctly. Much of the scene was 2 stops under "full" exposure or a little more, but also, in the scenes were highlights that were "fully" exposed or even blown out. He had exposed correctly for the final image and any poor beginner who read the article would likely be disappointed when viewing their own movie actually under exposed by 3 stops! I think a good way to get a "feel" of what a "stop" change looks like would be to shoot a test in a still film camera using slide film. I'm choosing slide film here as the development is standardized, taking away a lot of variables for your test. I would try placing your camera on a tripod and setting a white towel on the wall. Light the towel as evenly as you can with the light coming slightly from the side to show the texture of the towel. Set your light meter to the recommended ISO on the film box. Put your camera in manual mode and measure the exposure using a reflective meter (not incident). This exposure will be your "middle gray". Then increase the exposure by 1/2 stop increments until you've exposed 5 stops over and decrease your exposures until you've exposed 5 stops under. (it is best to slate each exposure to avoid any confusion). Then get the film developed and view all the slides on a light table arranged from darkest to lightest. Examine each slide through a loupe to see where you begin to loose details in the towel. This test will show you how much difference in "look" each stop of change results in and you should begin to get a "feel" for how much is "one stop" 🙂
  43. 1 point
    great shots of the best 16mm camera system....Aaton!
  44. 1 point
    As I surf the Internet quite a lot looking for inspiration and I come across old and new photographers, I thought I would open a thread where I could put them all and it might serve to somebody else too! :) I will update it from time to time! :) Masashi Wakui https://www.flickr.com/photos/megane_wakui/with/24909175291/ Lois Conner http://loisconner.net/home/ Claudine Doury http://blog.leica-camera.com/2012/06/19/claudine-doury-exploring-adolescence-through-photography/ Arnold Newman http://www.arnoldnewmanarchive.com/gallery-collections/archive-gallery Felix R. Cid http://www.felixrcid.com Sarah Muehlbauer http://sarahmuehlbauer.com Maayan Strauss http://www.maayanstrauss.com Gideon Barnett http://www.gideonbarnett.com Heyward Hart http://heywardhart.com Victoria Hely-Hutchinson http://vhely-hutchinson.com/?page=home Soi Park http://www.soipark.com Kate Mangold http://kate-mangold.com/home.html Meredith Miller http://meredithmillerphoto.com Ben Donaldson http://www.benjamindonaldson.com/Benjamin_Donaldson/Projects/Projects.html Matt Mawson http://www.mattmawson.com Michael Cheval (He is not a photographer but I like his work a lot) https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151861048048518.1073741828.47295143517&type=1 Peter McCollough http://www.petermccollough.com Michael Kenna http://www.michaelkenna.net/index2.php Ashley Morrison http://www.ashleymorrison.com/index.html Gregg Segal (Impressive work!) http://www.greggsegal.com/superhero.php Bob Martin http://www.bobmartin.com/gallery/test-gallery/ Cedric Delsaux http://www.cedricdelsaux.com/en Peter Coulson http://www.peter-coulson.com.au Ragnar Axelsson http://www.rax.is Bill Henson http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/works/?artist_id=henson-bill&page=1 Javier Gamonal http://runawaywithacircus.tumblr.com Ryan Schude http://www.ryanschude.com Have a good day!
  45. 1 point
    https://nofilmschool.com/blackwing7-custom-tuned-lenses-bradford-young-asc Custom tuned lenses, interesting. This with an LF Mini will make wonders. Not sure if this is new news or old news
  46. 1 point
    Bradford Young has done seriously amazing and beautiful work, I think hes this generations Harris Savides.
  47. 1 point
    I see a script rise before me. Famous cinematographer finds his old Super 8 reels. A long-forgotten thing within the images from the 70s is revealed. An adventure is launched. Yes it has possibilities.
  48. 1 point
    We've gone beyond rules here into etiquette and manners. There's no rule that a director has to show some manners when dealing with crews, or anyone else they encounter in life... but it would be nice.
  49. 1 point
    Hi, Steadicam seems to me to be a massive timesaver in certain situations. I've said all this before on the old board, but for recent subscribers - it saves time in the typical big US television production situation, where you often have a very large studio set which is lit to look good from almost any angle, without lighting in shot. You can, and they often do, blast off page after page of dialogue with walk-and-talks in a way that looks pretty and takes very little time to set up. The overhead to this of course is keeping a standing set on a stage at Paramount (Star Trek) or Warner (ER, The West Wing) which is obviously expensive, but it's a very powerful way of making forty-five minutes of good-looking TV drama in 7 days. Steadicam is a massive timesaver in these circumstances, but if you watch carefully they often do only this with it - there aren't feature-film style tracking shots, it's not being a quick-to-set-up dolly, it's walk after walk around this enormous set. If you do not have a large set that's well lit from all angles, steadicam can be a pain in the arse. I have done several short films where the producers wanted steadicam because they thought it would make the production look like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. However this paradigm simply does not hold for many location shoots where it's impossible to hide the lighting well enough to do extended walkthroughs; I have been in this situation on many occasions, often when I'm trying to light and operate at the same time, when you're shooting in someone's friend's father's office block with awful fluorescents and huge windows, and it becomes impossible to make it look nice for the whole walk and disaster ensues. So steadicam is a great timesaver if you already have a lot of money, but the freedom to see the whole location, warts and all, can be dangerous. Phil
  50. 1 point
    I did a televion movie for the BBC 2 months ago where the steadicam was chosen for the speed of the shooting, in a very hilly/angled terrain. In the hands of an experienced director, who anticipates the use of Steadicam,BEFORE executing the script, and together with an experienced operator it can save a lot of time, and allowing flexibility. I know for sure that in the 8 days of shooting we covered at least 3 weeks of conventional shooting, on dolly and sticks. It was hard though, 6 to 8 hours wearing the rig every day, while one foot is always lower than the other does stress the human body.
×
×
  • Create New...