Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/10/19 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. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 1 point
    Again proof you know nothing about this subject. Many top filmmakers on here with multiple feature credits in theaters around the world, have agreed with my statement that modern filmmaking is a job of producing, more than anything else. film·mak·er /ˈfilmˌmākər/ noun a person who directs or produces movies for the theater or television.
  7. 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
  8. 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! 🙂
  9. 1 point
    For about ten years I had a sideline working on my own with small business, installing accounting systems and databases and desktop publishing. Doing the job was the easiest part, selling the job, and collecting the money was the hardest. At the same time my day job was working for a corporation where they took care of all the business end and left me alone to do the part of the work I enjoyed. Maybe that's why the studio system did such great films, and almost everything I've seen out of Hollywood the last few years, including award winning movies, just seems sub-standard. The studio took care of the business side, letting the directors concentrate on the art.
  10. 1 point
    as for encouragement, try to get mentors you can learn from a lot and try to get in other filmmakers/students projects to learn how they do things and how many different ways there is to cleverly solve on-set problems in time when they arise. Of course do everything included in your school program but you need to do lots of extra as well to have better chances to get forward. maybe 3 or 4 times more than the school requires. Always try to get on set of higher end productions than your current level to continuously learn from people who are much more experienced than you. You will also get more important contacts that way. sometimes you need to do very tough decisions. like sometimes needing to decide do you want to graduate in time or at all or do you want to do movies for living and will need to give up the school degree temporarily or permanently to be able to make a living in the film industry if your best change to get there arises. I personally had to do that decision years ago and had very little time to choose. would work in some other industry by now if have chosen to finish the school like everyone else did.
  11. 1 point
    Hi there, Over the last few years I've developed a system to match cameras with color science, specifically matching digital footage to film. I recently finished a quite heavy project attempting to emulate 5219 with the Alexa, and I'd like to share it with you and hear what you think. I wrote a few words about my findings and thoughts from the process for those interested in the topic, as well as put some side-by-side images comparing film and Alexa after the color science has been applied. Here's a link to the post: ARRI Log C | Kodak 5219 I'm also interested in hearing your opinions on, and knowledge of, the use of similar color science within the industry in general. Are some of you using similar techniques already? I read that they used Steve Yedlin's display prep on Last Jedi to match digital shots, but haven't been able to find much info elsewhere on the application of such tools. Would you find creating film-like looks for digital capture a desirable trait or prefer clean Log C as a starting point for grading?
  12. 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
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Lovely look and nice punchy story, your hard work has paid off!
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    If it doesn't make any difference, I totally agree. Absolutely no point in shooting film if you can't get anything out of the medium that is different. I want to stress that I don't think film is generally "better" than digital. But I love the look and feel of film when it is used for its unique properties. In which case it is worth the inconvenience and expense, at least from an artistic point of view.
  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
    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.
  19. 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.
  20. 1 point
    Me likes, too. My suggestion would be: tripod. All else secondary
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 1 point
    That said City of God Last King of Scotland Constant Gardener All intercut Super 16 with 35mm and depending on shot size its not always obvious which is which. I saw city of god on 35mm and the mixed formats didn't jump out at me -looked pretty consistent. The lack of sharpness of super 16 is more visible on wider shots - so a film like City of God, shot in bright sunlight, with high contrast images in enclosed locations - its harder to spot the difference between the two formats.
  24. 1 point
    The tokina vista primes are T1.5. They seem pretty nice. Probably a little cheaper to rent if you can find them.
  25. 1 point
    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.
  26. 1 point
    No, grain size is a factor because of the smaller S16 neg and if you want a really shallow DoF. You can have a visually great S16 film, but they are different.
  27. 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. 🙂
  28. 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.
  29. 1 point
    Badly - I've been involved in a few mail outs back in the CD-R days. We had very low response rates and its an expensive form of marketing. Also lots of people won't risk playing a random disk thats turned up for fear of viruses etc.. Fewer devices have optical media drives and people are getting rid of their DVD players - so many people won't have the means to play a posted DVD. Also online tools like Facebook marketing is going to reach many more people for the same cost,. Its like $0.02 per person on facebook (a simplification) - but a DVD is going to cost several dollars to send and may only reach 1 person (if they play it).
  30. 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!
  31. 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.
  32. 1 point
    Sometimes the green screen can not be placed at a distance that simulates the background plate. And in this case it's up to the artistry and skills of the VFX artist to create the best tracking of the background. I have an example of this at the 3 minute mark in the clip linked below. This shot was made in a studio set of a boardroom in an office tower. The city seen out the window is computer generated. Even though we used tracking marks on the green, it was probably not very helpful for the FX artist as the distance to the green does not match the distance to the city out the window. So this became a not easy and expensive DFX shot. The chroma key shot begins at 3:00.
  33. 1 point
    Fine. Just say your directing a motion picture. I think that covers it 🙂
  34. 1 point
    Impossible to say without knowing what kind of vfx elements you are going to add afterwards and the special paths the camera is moving and what kind of tracking software you use and how wide the shot is etc. It may vary from a single tracking marker to hundreds and the optimal marker shape can vary as well. Sometimes it may be even more practical to shoot a certain shot without the greenscreen with using normal background to get enough tracking data and then just roto the subject instead of keying. A basic distinction would be whether you will do 2d or 2.5d tracking or 3d matchmoving and whether you use point trackers or planar trackers or both and how many you need to see at minimum on each frame to be able to track reliably. Have you hired a vfx supervisor for the shoot, he/she can check the shots you want to do and tell how it's easiest to archive them? We can try to give some suggestions here as well if you tell all the necessary details about the scene and individual shots
  35. 1 point
    Take care to do your research on what DVD stock you use, some are more stable for archive then others. I'd assume the archive grade is better then HDD but at this point its still a guess. I think the main issue with DVD's is they don't hold much data. A 4TB HDD would take a lot of space if written out to DVDs. Blu Ray of course is better data wise - but I wonder if its more or less robust for archival purposes.
  36. 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
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 1 point
    I've said everything I could possibly say before, but if you do nothing else, do this. Consider what the maximum possible level of success is. Consider what the likely level of success is. The film industry is extremely competitive, and most entrants fail to make a living. Any kind of living. The modern world is extremely hard on people without lots of money. Passion fades. Financial needs don't. Really, consider whether you want to do this. I would recommend you didn't, as your chances of success are microscopic.
  40. 1 point
    Watch movies, look at the works of great painters and develop artistic vision. Don't worry so much about what camera or what lens or the other technical stuff, it will come if the passion is there and vision is clear. Conrad Hall once asked an assistant to get him a certain lens and the assistant came back proudly with another lens that he thought was better. He explained to Conrad that it was a better lens and would produce a better image. Conrad didn't use it of course and didn't want the "better" image. He wanted the lens he wanted for a reason. It's what the artists wants to accomplish. If you have the vision and the passion to follow through the tools will be found to make what you imagine. Learn to use your imagination. That is the most important tool any great Cinematographer or artist of any salt has. Without it all the tools and technical know how is not worth a great deal.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 1 point
    A huge first step is the willingness to make the hobby your life. Millions of others are in the same place you are. Maybe only a few thousand of those millions are willing to go all in.
  44. 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
  45. 1 point
    Look at their resume and some of their work, then interview them. Talk to whoever worked with them before if possible.
  46. 1 point
    Maybe there is a principle here about choosing dolly or steadicam: Small moves with steadicam save time and money because, the dolly dance floor or track and rehearsel of the shot for dolly crew takes longer, This is especially true where wider lenses are ok so the Steadicam assistant, doesn't need as much rehearsel. Long involved Steadicam moves, work more efficiently outdoors or on large pre-lit stages. (especially top lit. or dimmered) When the location has to be lit for a long involved "all in one" steadicam move there is delay for light placement, difficulty keeping good framing while missing all the lights, more rehearsel and soft takes, as longer lenses are needed to keep the amount of background out of the shot. Many directors seem to feel they can do pages of stuff in long steadicam moves in indoor locations and save time. This attempt to have the cake and eat it is just wrong.
  47. 1 point
    Hi, Steadicam seems to me to be a massive timesaver in certain situations. I've said all this before on the old board, but for recent subscribers - it saves time in the typical big US television production situation, where you often have a very large studio set which is lit to look good from almost any angle, without lighting in shot. You can, and they often do, blast off page after page of dialogue with walk-and-talks in a way that looks pretty and takes very little time to set up. The overhead to this of course is keeping a standing set on a stage at Paramount (Star Trek) or Warner (ER, The West Wing) which is obviously expensive, but it's a very powerful way of making forty-five minutes of good-looking TV drama in 7 days. Steadicam is a massive timesaver in these circumstances, but if you watch carefully they often do only this with it - there aren't feature-film style tracking shots, it's not being a quick-to-set-up dolly, it's walk after walk around this enormous set. If you do not have a large set that's well lit from all angles, steadicam can be a pain in the arse. I have done several short films where the producers wanted steadicam because they thought it would make the production look like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. However this paradigm simply does not hold for many location shoots where it's impossible to hide the lighting well enough to do extended walkthroughs; I have been in this situation on many occasions, often when I'm trying to light and operate at the same time, when you're shooting in someone's friend's father's office block with awful fluorescents and huge windows, and it becomes impossible to make it look nice for the whole walk and disaster ensues. So steadicam is a great timesaver if you already have a lot of money, but the freedom to see the whole location, warts and all, can be dangerous. Phil
  48. 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.
  49. -1 points
    That's just being gratuitously sensible.
×
×
  • Create New...