Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/20/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I just took an HDR masterclass last week at AbelCine LA with Dado Valentic, who does an amazing job explaining science and workflow while keeping a refreshing enthusiasm about color. Though the class was HDR Grading and focused strongly on specific workflows, we spent a great deal of time talking theory, color spaces, and general color science. We've come a long way from Rec709 and he does a great job explaining how to "future proof" the work we shoot, grade, and deliver. Including ACES, P3, etc etc. It was a 2day course and walked out with a notebook filled with notes and a better understanding of my work. I was fortunate enough to have the company I'm working with put me up for it but I'd say it was well worth it.
  2. 1 point
    What David said - try to talk to people that have worked with them before. There are plenty of DOP's with stunning reels but are glacially slow on set. Or won't compromise "their" vision - none of these things will show on the reel (if anything the reels will be better). But we aren't shooting DOP showreels. A great DOP is one that know when its appropriate to take the extra time and push for a look. But also understands that when you backs against the wall, they are prepared to compromise to get the shot done. The biggest fight I ever had with a DOP on set was about a lighting setup that was good enough, the DOP wanted to make it better (normally a good instinct) - but not when your running late and I'd not have enough time to get all the shots I needed for the sequence. Its real find line - the DOP's job its to fight for the photographic integrity of the image, but its a balance and understanding compromise is a big thing. Talk to 1st ADs, even if they are the natural enemy of the DOP, they will let you know who's quick and efficient. You can normally tell from the showreel if they are technically competent, the important thing is can you work with them personally and can they work to the schedule. My questions would be more logistical, how would you marshal the resources we have to hand to make the film in the time available? I may ask crewing questions e.g do you have a team you work with etc? Do we need a Gaffer etc.... Things that impact the budget. Do you drive? (its a pain in the arse having to pick up your non car driving DOP from the train station each day) I would have already checked from their CV (resume) that they had shot on the proposed shooting format (or similar) and they wouldn't be in the room unless their reel looked stunning.
  3. 1 point
    Depends how you define success. My definition of success as an artist is to enjoy the process of creating work and produce work that I'm proud of. Anything else: Money, acclaim, awards etc... are all nice but their tangental to the reason I make stuff. So I work on my projects and be happy in the process. Sure "financial" success would be nice but at the moment I have complete creative control which I like. I've taken jobs on large productions and in some cases been paid very well, but the didn't tend to be as creatively fulfilling as the micro budget stuff thats all my own. Obviously I have to learn a living, but I don't connect my worth as an artist and creative with the successes in my paid "career". Sure I would prefer to make a living on my own films. But thats very hard to do and its most likely I won't be able to do that. However I'd only consider myself a "failure" at filmmaking if I wasn't making films (that I'm proud of). Better for mental health reasons to separate the two. I think if you set out to define success by being a HOD on a Hollywood movie the vast majority of people that set out to do that would fail. Its not a meritocracy or a case of working harder, the odds are similar to becoming a professional Footballer. The other definition of success could be entirely financial, this is perhaps easier as there are many ways to make a good living that are connected to the "industry" - but they may only be tangentially creative or artistically full-filling. I, like more and more people have a "portfolio" career - that mixes a range of roles on things. Some creative, some less creative - and I different areas of creativity. Film Education: Is useful for some people and even if its possible to learn most things via the internet and books - some people need structure or it can be focused Not all programmes are good Some are very expensive There are other routes in, I went to the NFTS on a Scholarship that covered fee's and living expenses (these scholarships do still exist, although they are hard to get). The NFTS didn't catapult me into Hollywood(unfortunately) but it was without doubt the most fulfilling, creative, challenging and important 2 years of my life (outside of becoming a parent). Even if it did nothing for my career - I would change it for anything because it was such an incredible experience. Even had paid full price, the programme would have been worth it just on a personal level. I am a filmmaker because I have no other choice. I've tried other career paths, I've got a degree in Electronic Engineering, i've worked for Software companies, engineering firms, insurance, banking. They all made me miserable. I'm obsessed with film - I resisted film for a long time because I was worried about my ability to make a living. But it didn't make me happy. I didn't go to filmschool till I was 28. My only regret is I didn't start younger. But thats me - It took me the time to realise I won't be happy doing anything else. Most people that say they want to work in "film", don't really want it, not enough. They might think they do but after 6 months to a couple of years of badly paid entry level work (running etc..) they drop out. The hardcore stick at it and generally the people who are successful are the ones that stick it out and keep trying. Attitude is everything.
  4. 1 point
    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.
  5. 1 point
    I got over my 16mm loading anxiety pretty quickly after watching several youtube videos and futzing with some dead rolls a friend had. Its not too tricky. Will say though, in the spirit of the original post's wishlist idea... man I'd love a 416 or an Xtera with an HD (or higher) flicker free video tap. Who wants to do a kickstarter? lol
  6. 1 point
    The Super 8 cartridge is incredibly cheap in every way. The plastic, the pressure plate, the spring, ect. are all made to be as inexpensive as possible yet still yield passable results. These are meant for one use and discarded. But even they add costs to the film because of the extra labor assembling them. To make a 100' or 400' 16mm (or 35mm) cartridge system would add significantly to the cost of film because it would have to be MUCH more substantial than the Super 8 system to hold up to professional use. So basically it would be like a new Arri magazine every time. Yes you could do a deposit/return thing like bottles but would not be very practical. Not sure where you can cut corners with that design either but it wouldn't save very much even if you designed a brand new camera (which would NEVER happen.) So we're back to loading our own magazines which goes really fast and isn't so bad once you do it regularly and is also why clapper/loaders exist. As my Kodak rep recently told me, loaders are getting twice as much money as they used to because its becoming a rare skill. (and too much responsibility for me!)
  7. 1 point
    I mean, I don't quite see the reasoning. My 35mm and 16mm camera's are both "cartridge" based cameras. You load the magazines before you run the camera and simply slap a new one on when you wish to change rolls. The modern coaxial quick load magazines are dead quiet, pretty light and durable. To make a camera system that used a cartridge to the level of that, would be nearly impossible. They would need to have some sort of universal drive mechanism that didn't make much noise and the cartridge would need to either have a beautiful well tuned pressure plate OR you'd have to thread it like a daylight spool camera OR Logmar Super 8 camera. So I don't see how it would work really...
×
×
  • Create New...