Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/09/19 in all areas

  1. 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
  2. 1 point
    Its just a lot of money. The two jokers together will be about $20,000. I'm not familiar with the Chicago market but your going to wanna to see how many days you can bring them on as a kit fee or rent them out to get your money back. The two lights rent for about $375 together in LA, thats around 55 days which is a sizable amount of working days depending on how often you work. Not to mention insurance and maintenance, and repairs, which probably bring it more to like 60-65. If you have the days its worth it. ROI aside the units are really good, I would get the lensless reflectors for both units. The joker 1600 is actually brighter than an m18 if you have that. I would bypass the aputures if you are gonna invest in the jokers. Might as well get quasar battery powered units with honeycrates. More versatile. Its all up to your particular style, but I would drop the second joker and get some litemat 4 with snapgrids, they are probably the most useful smaller light out there. I don't like going on jobs without one. But if you like a harder front/fill light with the dramatic sports hard backlight then it might not be useful. If you rather the hard edge and a softer wrap around fill from the edge side, the eggcrated litemat comes in pretty handy.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 1 point
    Grading an action movie. Kerpow! Pzing! Gyrrrngh, aaargh! Take that, Stock Action Movie Bad Guy #113! Kaboom!
×
×
  • Create New...