Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 3 points
    I read your very negative view of what I said. I still stand by it. Encouragement and insights are the way to help Students. Telling someone they can do it and it will require hard work is going to have a much better chance of success. And, as far as attacking I think you are attacking me. I was simply making a statement that I felt is important to state. It's like when I go to church and the preacher is yelling fire and brimstone and you will burn in hell at the depth of Dante' Inferno. (You have to read this book to get the full impact of what I am saying) At any rate all the damnation the preacher goes on about and there is nothing about the greatest universal love and forgiveness! So, with all the hell fire flying around I say unto you most solemnly, Praise and encouragement goes a long way in developing new talent. 🙂
  2. 3 points
    Recent Kodak Post https://nofilmschool.com/2016/06/be-filmmaker-not-video-maker-interview-kodak-president-motion-picture-and-entertainment?fbclid=IwAR1i2TAiOfoSeOY4yt17e8ZvzZTB6PuA4far0zPSpiUYlrCN2fH5wnNBGEA
  3. 2 points
    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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 1 point
    Why? It's either going to work or it's not. We've bought plenty of them - DLT4000 (at least three), DLT7000, DLT8000 (2 of these), DLT80, LTO2, LTO4, LTO5, LTO6, LTO7. All used. All have made hundreds of tapes with no issues. All tapes verify correctly, and all of the tapes made work on client systems. These are robust machines, designed to run tens of thousands of tapes in their lifetimes. Most of the used ones were upgraded by IT departments when they moved to a newer format, so they've depreciated somewhat and they're just looking to recoup costs. Just look on ebay and you'll find them used and refurbished. You might need to buy an internal drive and a separate enclosure for it to get the best deal, but putting them together is as simple as installing a hard drive. Here are recent sales on ebay: https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=lto5+external+drive&_sop=15&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1
  17. 1 point
    Lovely look and nice punchy story, your hard work has paid off!
  18. 1 point
    I agree. It's not 35mm, so why pretend it is?
  19. 1 point
    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
  20. 1 point
    Technically, the grain structure is identical, as the emulsions are the same. What differs is the size of the grain due to increased magnification. While this might not be an issue when viewing at low resolutions, it would be very obvious in a projected print. Field of view can be matched simply by switching lenses. What may be impossible to replicate is the depth of field of 35mm.
  21. 1 point
    I can't believe that the cost of sending film to be developed was a large of the budget of a major studio production. But the cost of re-accessing locations for re-shoots could be a problem. With digital you know when you've got the shot and keep on until you have. Btw - I think "dailies" were delivered daily, but often lagged several days.It was more a question of going to a location or re-building a set to shoot if there was a problem. I'm not a professional, but I'd suggest that the biggest change to costs with digital is lighting. Modern sensors need a lot less of it than film.
  22. 1 point
    Very nice, I liked it a lot. I don't have many notes, it's short, sweet and to the point, just the way I like short films. 🙂
  23. 1 point
    I with friends in Russia was tasted old France 35 mm movie camera, Andre Debrie Le Parvo model L, 1930s. First video- review in Russian and test to black and white film stock Svema M3-3. I make first video with Debrie Parvo camera on 35 mm film, film stocks test scan full HD and backstage you can see. English subtitles included! Enjoy!
  24. 1 point
    I'd never attempt a full day's shoot with the Alexa without a minimum of 5 batteries of around 150wh each (and then, only if I knew I'd be able to recharge them during the day). The Arri chews through power in order to give the high performance that it does.
  25. 1 point
    wow, you are always so helpful over the years David...and Dom...thank you guys. Super appreciate it.
  26. 1 point
    EZrigs are good at "taking the edge off" of handheld. Not a steadicam, and obviously not a gimbal, but if skilled you can find a good middleground between the two. You can also adjust how handheldy you want it to feel. It also solves the microshake problem of smaller cameras, if applicable. My hips hurt after awhile with this rig.
  27. 1 point
    In that case, please disregard my craziness.
  28. 1 point
    Edge fogging can impinge into the S16 frame where the N16 frame would be unaffected, as Aapo and I have explained. 400' rolls are on cores so obviously must be in total darkness, but 100' daylight spools may- may - be loaded in subdued light, the clue being in the name, because the flanges are very tight. As you say the Kodak advice is "total darkness" but this has changed. It used to be "subdued light", although I note from my 1980 Kodak field guide that the R-90 and R-190 are not actually referred to as "daylight spools". Of course fast colour stocks are a comparatively recent invention I would still be happy loading a daylight spool indoors, with my back to the light, or somewhere shady outdoors.
  29. 1 point
    Thanks for posting that! His East 100th street photos are brilliant! Of course as well as all his other work.
  30. 1 point
    I'd say go the direct route. Train in cinematography. But if you already have an in as a gaffer well you got a foot in the door, go from there. I don't work in the biz. I do underground and experimental work. So there are no rules...only question is...is it legal.
  31. 1 point
    You may have misread my advice which is less about the perception others may form of you and more about what you may be lacking as far as experience that is uniform and expected of you no matter where you're working. Just replace the job title with A.D. or anything else on the crew and you'll find it makes sense. You'd expect your 1st A.C to know how to pull focus under most situations no matter the country they're working in with or without a monitor, with or without a wireless unit. etc. There are variations to approach but also general best practices for each position that cross cultures and countries. One of which is location scouting and daily scheduling. It's by far the best way to avoid falling behind in your days. Visit each location and discuss the breakdown with the director. Then make a lighting plan for yourself so you can give it to the crew. It'll save a ton of time. Especially if they can prelight the next area while you work. Good luck.
  32. 1 point
    If you're outside in a forest during the day with that equipment, you're not likely to have much ability to affect the light that much. Make sure one side of your bounce boards is black, so you can use it as negative fill and get some sort of shape in faces for closeups, perhaps. The FS7 is a very capable camera and it's possible to create very presentable results with it. I think in your situation it'll be about blocking and framing and camera movement. Got any photos of the location, examples of what you want it to look like, and an idea of the action?
  33. 1 point
    Nice one .. your on your way !
  34. 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!
  35. 1 point
    I was just joking about the word "lasered". It did make sense to me though!
  36. 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.
  37. 1 point
    I have seen lots of local early 2000's movies which went through a DI and digital grading and in the recent years the producers/distributors wanted to do a new dcp or hd tv release out of them. that has been proved to be surprisingly difficult considering the early days of DI where they recorded the graded movie directly back to film for striking 35mm prints and then did the tv master on beta or digibeta tapes and that's it (no hdcam sr yet). the graded DPX intermediate was generally not saved (hdd space was expensive back then) and one can't really scan scratched and high contrast print copy to get a 2k quality version of the film for re release. Meaning that one basically does not have any decent quality color graded version of the movie at all in good enough quality and one needs to reconform and rescan and re grade the whole movie from the original camera negatives to be able to make a 2k digital version out of it. AND do the vfx again if there was any. The whole process is extremely cost prohibitive (will cost at least tens of K's to do) and they may give up the idea when hearing how close to impossible it actually is to do for reasonable price. another thing is those rare D6 tapes used for doing the hd masters in the early 2000's. One is extremely lucky to find a working machine to play back those (those are extremely rare, only couple of them in working condition in the whole world) and that is basically the only graded usable master one has apart from the film prints. the alternative is to again rescan and regrade everything. the hdcam sr masters made it a little bit easier because there were actually an existing hd quality tape you could find a working deck for and could actually play it back and get the image out of it. That was very helpful after the erased dpx nightmare and the D6 times 🙂 --- anyway, nowadays it is best to stick to the most useful standard formats I think. Audio as separate .wav or .aiff 24/48 files, the picture in both prores 444 and dpx or tiff files. clean versions without bars and separate subtitle files if available. archive to LTO and do the other copies to the mediums of choice (ssd, hdd, raid, network storage, cloud, etc.) and migrate to new media types as needed.
  38. 1 point
    AH ah ah, that's a good one 😄
  39. 1 point
    Film is cheaper. When exposing film you need a lab where someone develops your pictures. You come in contact with lab people which typically is priceless. If you want to buy yourself into such human relations in the digital world, you need a lot of money.
  40. 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" 🙂
  41. 1 point
    Season Three teaser looks interesting!
  42. 1 point
    The problem shooting daylight exteriors is that the sun moves throughout the day, so lights are needed to maintain continuity between shots filmed at different times of day. If you plan your shots properly, you don't need as big and HMI as you may think to maintain continuity. With proper planning you can get way with nothing more than a 4kw par and 1.2kw Par - which you can run on a modified Honda EU7000 generator with a Transformer/Distro that provides a single 60A/120V circuit. The approach that I find works best is to wait to shoot the establishing master shot until the sun is in a backlight position. Up to that point shoot the close coverage under a large silk (12x or 20x.) Shooting the close coverage under a silk offers a number of advantages. The silk takes the direction out of the sun and knocks down its' level by two and one half stops so now you can use a smaller HMI to create consistent modeling in all the close-ups. Shooting into talents' down side under a silk, I find that a 4K par through a diffusion frame is a sufficient key source for a good size shot. You need the diffusion because a bare par will be too harsh. When shooting close coverage under the silk, nets behind our talent will control the background from blowing out. The advantages to waiting to shoot the wide master until the sun has moved around to a back light position are many. One, the background is also back-lit so the discrepancy in exposure between the background and our talent under the silk is not that great and so you can open up to gain exposure of our talent in the foreground without burning out the background. Two, your background looks better because it is not flatly lit, but has some contrast. And three, with the sun in a backlight position, the shadows of the silk frame and stands are thrown forward, which enables you to frame wide without picking up the shadow of the hardware. Finally, since the silk takes the direction out of the sun and knocks down its' level by two and one half stops a 4k HMI par has enough output to create the look and feel of natural sunlight. For more detailed information on powering 4k HMIs on portable gas generators, I would suggest you read an article I wrote on the use of portable generators in motion picture production. Guy Holt, Gaffer, ScreenLight & Grip, Lighting Rental & Sales in Boston
  43. 1 point
    Tarantino used it in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
  44. 1 point
    Personal taste is of course personal taste. My previous comments were a bit blunt.
  45. 1 point
    For what it's worth... If I were shooting a b&w movie, I would probably shoot in color and convert to b&w in digital color correction. With this method one can create the effect of any color filter during the conversion so it's a lot more versatile.
  46. 1 point
    Yuck - bit too magenta for my taste. I wouldn't hold those LUT's (or whatever) as great examples of grading. The photography is good (maybe your responding to that), but for me the colour correction is working against the footage.
  47. 1 point
    Without the perspective of time, it's hard to see evolution as it actually happens. You don't know what's a passing fad versus a structural change. When I learned filmmaking, I first studied my heroes and then I studied the people my heroes said they studied. Whether anyone was contemporary or past didn't matter to me as long as I was excited by the work. Saying you want to learn cinematography only by studying the present is like saying you want to learn about writing only by reading contemporary writers.
  48. 1 point
    I just use Photoshop from the last full version I bought, which is getting on for ten years old now but does everything I regularly need. Yes, they're focussed on features not stability or speed, and certainly in some parts of the world it is not a good deal as a rental. Yes, they're getting a lot of trade from young beginners who don't understand the difference between capital and revenue, but the way they seem to have worked it out is that it's exactly as expensive as buying every new version of Creative Suite, which nobody ever did because all those new features were rarely that useful. It is much more expensive outside the US, because of no reason other than greed. It has had very little worthwhile work done on it since the launch of Creative Cloud. This is why After Effects still uses the version of Javascript from 1999 (OK, it theoretically went to final standard in March 2000) as its scripting language, the reason the scripting interpreter is such a horrific memory hog, spawning one interpreter instance per layer, and why there are still such crushing limitations on what can be scripted - and that's just the scripting engine. The whole application is dog slow and still doesn't support large CPU core counts as well as it could and should. It is very expensive software. This is not acceptable. Yes, fixing all that is a lot of work. Yes, it probably involves tearing the whole application down to the bare bones and rebuilding it. It is a vast undertaking, and one that's going to create a lot of compatibility issues with plugins, which are key to many (most?) workflows. After Effects is a very, very large piece of software and it is widely used in a huge variety of circumstances. I like it a lot and have used it a lot. But the complete, ongoing neglect of core problems is not OK. Adobe is a very large, very successful, very powerful company. It is capable of doing that work. It simply doesn't care to, because these are problems that are not obvious to the college kids who have never known anything any different. Why would Adobe spend the money? So AE languishes. So yes, I would like nothing more than to replace everything in Creative Suite with third party apps. Blackmagic have offered us a tantalising option with Resolve plus Fusion (and of course Fairlight, which is often overlooked.) The editing in Resolve is fine, though how can you really get that wrong. I don't know enough about Fairlight to comment. Fusion, however, is not AE, even if only because the conversion training is a 'mare. There is really no worthwhile alternative to AE, at least at the level at which AE operates right now. There is also no sensible alternative to Photoshop. Adobe know this. P
  49. 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.
  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...