Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/17/19 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
    Phil is correct. But, someone is going to make the movies. Why not you? The odds are always against you in any popular profession. If that worries you, find another career. If not, stop posting these questions and get to work! 🙂
  16. 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
  17. 1 point
    To jump in... I guess in the sense that super 16 isn't technically a great image, unless your very careful it risks being a bit grainy and low res. A mid range digital camera would vastly exceed it in resolution and close to match in latitude. Although the digital camera lacks the "film look" - a lot of (most) lay people when shown an A/B comparison of 16mm vs 4K digital on a big screen would state that the digital was better quality, due to the general flaws that are part of the super 16 look. So if you want to shoot 16mm it should be about embracing its "flaws" and texture. Buuut the OP was kind of hinting that he wanted to see if 16mm could be made to look like 35mm, e.g better then it is. If your trying to make 16mm take on the qualities of 35mm e.g sharper, less grain, less DOF, more resolution, better image stability - then those qualities could be easier achieved on a digital shoot. Its more budget friendly then film. I'd suspect the OP wants the quality of 35mm but has a 16mm budget - so digital isn't a daft option in that case. Even requiring post tweaking.
  18. 1 point
    Exceeding in what way? If you are going for a specific film look, why pick a digital camera? Which digital camera produces a film look without having to tweak the images in post? Honest question.
  19. 1 point
    Me likes, too. My suggestion would be: tripod. All else secondary
  20. 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.
  21. 1 point
    Check out First Man (2018), S16 intercut with mostly 2 and 3 perf 35mm. I saw it on the big screen (digital) and it all looked fantastic. I've also got it on Blu Ray. The first part of the movie is S16. Looked just slightly grainy but great in the theatre. The rest of the movie is mostly 2 perf 35mm. The S16 was particularly good for the cockpit shots and when they filmed in the command module/LEM. Walking on the moon set was shot in 65mm. But if you mean making 35mm prints, super 16 might be quite grainy. Then again, it's certainly been done with success. Modern audiences, accustomed to crystal clear digital imagery, might take a while to acclimatize to it.
  22. 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.
  23. 1 point
    The tokina vista primes are T1.5. They seem pretty nice. Probably a little cheaper to rent if you can find them.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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!
  27. 1 point
    Really? Just get out there and make MOVIES :):):)
  28. 1 point
    there is nothing wrong being a first time fiction DP but it may make things incredibly slow especially if there is high artistic intentions and standards which need to be met and if the rest of the crew is not super experienced so that they can help you out both in pre production and in the field when problems arise. By my experience, the easiest way to slow a production and get it to go hugely over budget is to hire a newbie DP and newbie Assistant Director. if the Gaffer and Key Grip are also inexperienced it can multiply. It is mostly about staying in the schedule as best as you can and any mistakes can have serious time effects to the point of having every day go seriously overtime and still needing to leave shots or even scenes off the movie because the time for shooting them was wasted earlier on. I heard of a newbie AD who wasted maybe half a million euros on a movie production by being inexperienced in scheduling and not listening the technical people enough and trying to be too nice to the director when really should have said no and moved on to the next scene. lots of time wasted there and the production company was not happy at all.. I would say keep your lighting and camera setups very simple and fast to do (make sure they can be done in half the time you have available for rigging) and always make sure the safety is taken care of. You need to communicate with your staff and the Director and AD beforehand to make sure everything planned can be done in the time you have and if there is any time consuming setups you can find a workaround which is more time efficient. For example on that kino flo shoot in the middle of the forest I would have had possibility to use gimbal every day on certain shots but I intentionally left it completely away because it takes lots of time to rig the camera to the gimbal and back to tripod so we would not have time to shoot all the shots for the scenes and would have needed additional day to finish them. it would have been marginally possible to shoot the shots on steadicam which we also had possibility to use but the terrain is very difficult there and would have slowed down the steadi a lot so it was not practical. .... you need to be able to do this kind of decisions both beforehand and on the fly without consuming too much time to think about them. otherwise it will seriously hurt you in the next scene when you are hours late on schedule and the sun is setting and you have only one smaller light and still two pages of dialogue to shoot...
  29. 1 point
    Congratulations on your new job! You're not going to learn how to be a Director of Photography on an internet forum... So, just do you best. There is a reason you were chosen for this roll. Just show em' what you've got, tell the story, and learn along the way. Happy shooting!
  30. 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.
  31. 1 point
    I’ve found it both excellent and terrifying. Very well done.
  32. 1 point
    Get in touch with Martin first before sending footage in. martin.mcglone@kodak.com
  33. 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..
  34. 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
  35. 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!
  36. 1 point
    AH ah ah, that's a good one 😄
  37. 1 point
    Offering for sale, an excellent used Aaton XTR-Prod package that has been service-checked to factory specs, Magazines have had their dried-out textile linings replaced with modern "mass-loaded" vinyl acoustic shielding. Lens has been serviced & checked for focus through the zoom range and tracking, Time code & origin C+ master clock all functioning correctly. Can't find the wooden hand grip at the moment, but we will locate and include, but it may come after initial shipment. Package includes: Aaton XTR Prod super 16 time-code body w/Variable shutter, glow, heated eyepiece, HDTV/1.66 combo viewing screen, Arri PL mount Aaton B&W video assist (NTSC) 3x 400' film magazines Aaton 200mm eyepiece extension (not heated) Aaton CH2 battery charger 4x12vdc onboard batteries 4-pin XLR power cable for external power Aaton Origin C+ time code master clock Pair, 15mm support rods Canon 11.5-138mm T2.5/PL zoom lens with aux. zoom gear & support bracket for servo motors Canon 95mm clamp-on sunshade/filter holder. Holds 2-4x4" filters Cases for all Price: US$ 13,500.00 Equipment is available for inspection in my Seattle USA office. Shipping & insurance is at buyer's expense. We sell & ship internationally. Email me at : cp@seriousgear.com Thanks for looking ! -Charles Pickel, Serious Gear Co.
  38. 1 point
    It’s a very spotted-in light and the shot is exposed to let the center of the spot be very hot. Then there is some lens diffusion to cause the bright area to glow. In many scenes, something like a tungsten PAR64 with a spot, narrow spot, or very narrow spot globe was used but the size and power of the unit depends on the distance to subject, the sensitivity of the camera, etc. In a smaller space, for example, I’ve used a tweenie 650w at full spot pointed down with a snoot, or I’ve used a 150w Dedolight at full spot. Or I’ve gone bigger, to a 1K baby. Almost any lens diffusion will cause some halation around bright lights but in this case, it was something like a ProMist.
  39. 1 point
    Pentax Spotmatic.....my old British passport......old maps i have.....old tourist office pen.....old postcards from that era......original suitcase from that era that was my uncle's.....I styled him myself...went shopping at ZARA for his clothes...point Im making....just go out there and shoot and have fun!.
  40. 1 point
    Personal taste is of course personal taste. My previous comments were a bit blunt.
  41. 1 point
    Oddly enough, I think you'd be right if you're talking about film. I hear from some photographers that Portra 400 is an amazing b&w film. But for digital, the Bayer filter gets in the way, and I'd personally shoot with a monochrome sensor. I'm considering buying monochrome converted versions of the cameras I use, as I shoot only b&w for some applications.
  42. 1 point
    Just go with what looks best.. you don't have to follow any set manual .. or ratio.. many are very old fashioned "you should do this when you shoot this" ratio,s... very often you don't need any fill or a tiny bounce.. your better off reading up about some of the DP,s who dont follow any rules.. like Roger Deakins.. technical knowledge is of course important.. but "how to light manuals "..from donkeys years ago.. chuck them.. 🙂
  43. 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
  44. 1 point
    Bradford Young has done seriously amazing and beautiful work, I think hes this generations Harris Savides.
  45. 1 point
    I sure understand doing something I love and sacrifice. You have no idea how much time, personal debt and tears went to print magazines after the recession. At any rate, the way to help others is not to discourage them and beat them up. I guess I am guilty of the same and do so non-intentionally. Yes, it's competitive, but it's also a lot of who you know and not just what you know. For the longest time, the industry was ruled by Hollywood and a couple of camera companies. Nepotism and friends of friends got the jobs not the passionate and talented. Also, there is a lot of politics in front of the camera, behind the camera and at the box office. There is nothing in the world like making movies. If you want to do it go for it. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't do it. Find your way. And, be tougher than nails because you will need to be.
  46. 1 point
    Well, I won't get into the discussion about making money for creative people. It's really tough. I won't discuss the sacrifices I've had to make as a creative person. But I can talk about what being an artist is, and the perpetual question of tools and technique. I've known and know quite a few artists, both visual (painting, etching and sculpture) and musical. I haven't known too many filmmakers - in that field I've pretty much been the only person around the place who was into film - as I grew up in a quiet, semi-rural area during my teens, when I got my start. But it's in music, where I've had a lot of interaction with other musicians, I've found a surprising level of rigidity of thought about technique, and what tools you use. Teachers are so often adamant that you have to have a certain set up of your instrument. And play with a certain technique. I always think it's bizarre. I choose the instrument set up I want ... because I want it for a good reason. It's the sound I'm after. I know the music world best (classical) and you know what I've found? The best don't care what tool you use. And you play it with your toes for all they care. It is only the final result they ever care about. The sound. The music. The rest is unimportant .. often just a chasing after vain things. With filmmaking it should be the same thing. The look. The story. Who cares if it was shot on what. So in that sense have a clear idea of what it is you are trying to produce.
  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
    In filmmaking you'll be working with lots of very, very smart and literate people and one of the ways they bond with each other and communicate their ideas is by talking about plays, novels, and non-fiction. So, you need to get a grounding in that world. If you're a student, go see every play, author, candidate, and filmmaker who appears on campus or in your city no matter who they are or what they're talking about. School is a time to expose yourself to ideas—especially ideas you may disagree with. That's part of becoming an artist: the ability to work with differing points of view simultaneously. Your first goal should be to attend or watch films of at least half of Shakespeare's 37 plays plus some Chekhov, Eugene O'Neill, and Edward Albee (even if it's bad community theater, you need to see these works). In your car always have either a classic novel or current best-seller going. Try and get in a political book once in a while, but never express your political leanings on set—it's OK however, to talk about the cinematic and commercial possibilities of a political book, who owns the rights, and who you might cast in the roles. The only other thing I would recommend is to memorize the f/stops in 1/3 intervals between f/.09 and f/64.
  49. 1 point
    Allright, some updates. First test shoot coming up at the end of the week, I'm glad I managed to finish the video assist in time. It works well, but obviously it adds quite a bit of clunkiness to the camera. But obviously it helps to be able to see a de-stretched image. I took some photos of my (still quite messy) setup. Shorter cables would help a lot with this, gotta work on that. But the important thing: There is video, I can easily flip away the video tap-camera for focusing through the viewfinder (SD signal from the cctv camera is obviously not useable for that). Video of me flipping away the cctv camera in order to use the eyepiece (have to use my left eye in this setup. I will move the whole system to the right side of the camera in the future so I can use my right eye for proper viewing ;-) ) https://streamable.com/8nk1z
  50. 1 point
    thanks for the website brian... And i have seen those awesome Shane Hurlbut behind the scenes Video's... there really cool, and i watch them over and ever again!
×
×
  • Create New...