Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/17/19 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Hmm an attempt to get more coverage? Cropping reduces quality. Or they could have been running at different framerates, shutter speed, stills, VFX look around etc... who could forget the 35mm/HD hybrid from:
  2. 2 points
    If anyone says they don't see a difference, they either are sitting far, far away from the screen or their eyesight is in question, honestly. There ARE some very rare examples of super clean 35mm, but yeah, otherwise, it's plain as day. 16mm and 2 perf are of course either more blatant. But hell, even anamorphic 35mm these days can be plenty grainy. I love it when DPs push process and really aren't scared of grain.
  3. 2 points
    but this is evanglism from your side btw. however… i do care on the choice of formats and i do respect the choices of others. But i don´t like when people do "anti" film propaganda… cause this ends in dump discussions with producers… just to remember, thats what i wrote: "not saying that this trailer does look terrible but i got distracted by the look. And i loved wide-angled shots chivo does on the prior mallick movies." just means that i got distracted by the look -. thats what the look does to me however what it was shot on. I do personally like all mediums digital & film and i use mainly the alexa for tvc/advertising work. But i still see many reason for both formats film & digital nowadays 2019. And I can´t understand why people propaganda digital as be as same as film…or saying that there isn´ßt any difference (what you clearly said above) there is still a differnce and i can tell you from many many telecine & grading sessions. Also a reason why many cinemato and photographers still use film. And no i am not a Film Fanboy… But saying there is no difference isn´t the truth. And yes its a CInematographers Forum we still should discuss about that! But enough for now… sorry for getting this out of Topic.
  4. 2 points
    I didn't read the original post as that. Maybe there was nothing to defend? Anyway, here's to good films. Whichever method.
  5. 1 point
    I mean starting off with that mentality early on can lead to clients/producers exploiting people for free labor under the guise of "oh well I never heard of you" or "oh you're not THAT good". Seen it a million times unfortunately.
  6. 1 point
    Even I'm not quite sure what that means, Max. I think what Max means is that if you can get away with charging for it, charge for it. Much of your ability to do that is down to confidence and ability to sell yourself, coupled, hopefully, with a degree of competence. But just the competence won't get you anywhere, so frankly I say go for it. P
  7. 1 point
    That's dangerous territory. All labor has a cash price, it's all about what you have the leverage to negotiate for.
  8. 1 point
    I'm usually very cautious about any sort of film school as they're a lot of money and the results are very unsure. As far as I'm aware, Ravensbourne has a pretty decent record of putting people into employment so it may be one of the better choices, but you should still do a lot of research about exactly what sort of job you want to get, and what you will need to get it. I associate Ravensbourne more with broadcast TV than single-camera drama and features, but either way, I recommend seeing if you can get out on any full-size sets and see what actually goes on. Look into what the union has going on for that. I don't think there are any jobs in film or TV that you absolutely must have a college course to do other than some of the electrical roles, and that's not usually a college course anyway (and it isn't that complicated.) Think very hard before you go deeply into debt on this. P
  9. 1 point
    I have used both DS and non DS lenses. I noticed that my 85mm T1.5 non DS has a green cast that my 35mm T1.5 non DS doesn't have. It is very easy to remove. I have a preset in my NLE that I apply to everything I shoot on the 85 before grading it (to match my 35.) That said, I can't say I've noticed any sharpness difference between any of the Rokinon or Samyang cine lenses. They are the same glass as the Xeen series so they should be the same sharpness as the Xeen lenses.
  10. 1 point
    I would think carefully about the price charged for the edit - thats where these things can come unstuck. Its better to agree and hourly rate for the edit then an all in deal. Otherwise you can fall into the trap doing many revisions and can make what was a fair rate into very little when you factor the extra time in. On the budget jobs where a fixed fee is agreed in advance I make it very clear in writing what is covered in the fee and that any extras will be charged for. E.g you might include one round of revisions in the edit price and then charge additional revisions. It helps focus the mind of your clients as well, if they know your not going to do a ton of tweaks they (might) be more careful about the notes needed. Working on a low rate is more acceptable on creatively interesting projects that you can turn around quickly. But the zombie projects that get trapped in post production hell are no fun.
  11. 1 point
    First of all, congratulations on realising early that this is work and you should get paid for it. It is, and you should. Figuring out what to charge is always tricky, especially at the beginning of your career. Clearly, minimum wage isn't a target, but I'd be aware of it (see here.) It's incredibly easy to end up spending huge amounts of time on something, working out what your hourly rate is, and figuring out you're making less than someone slinging burgers at McDonald's, which isn't really OK. The age discrimination in the minimum wage is downright offensive, though, so I'd use the living wage, which as you're based in London is £10.55 an hour. That's a minimum, not a target. You should factor in something for your camera gear. This company wants £36 a day for an 80D and then there's the lens. As a rough guide, take the value of a piece of equipment (its value now, not when it was new) and divide by 20 or 30, something close to that. Sometimes people do give away gear free or at a big discount when they're owner-operating it, but that's up to you. Make sure you can claim expenses like travel and subsistence (meals, accommodation, etc.) Same deal if you're going to Brighton for the day or the Serengeti for a month. As to permissions, it depends what you're intending to do. My thought is, if you're being paid, you're not a student for the purposes of the job in question. Different councils all over the country have different approaches to permissions for film and TV work. What follows is my understanding of the law which I believe to be accurate but clearly, I'm not a lawyer. There is no restriction on photography in public in the UK, with very narrow exceptions under certain circumstances for military installations, nuclear sites and so on. In short, in public, you can shoot what you like, including people and private property, from a public place, and it's allowed. Beware places that look like public places but aren't. Also, if you start setting up equipment and it is getting in people's way or causing a safety hazard, if you shin up a tree and film someone getting changed through a bedroom window, that's not OK. Behave in a sane manner, though, and you're fine. But. There is currently quite a culture of trying to stop people filming in public. Often people, even the police and particularly private security guard, don't really know the details of the law. Carry a copy of this document which was released by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and advises the police not to bother film crews. ACPO no longer exists but the advice is still valid. If it happens, that's the time to be nice, polite and utterly professional but firm. If someone wants to call the cops for no reason other than you're standing in public with a camera, let them. There are exceptions; for instance, anything involving guns means taking a few extra steps to ensure you're not shot by a police firearms unit - but that probably isn't you at this point. Basically, if it's a tiny thing with you and a few friends with hand-held reflectors and battery powered lights, you should do your own research, but personally I'd just go and do it. If you want to start setting up gear, maybe have a look at the local council website and see if they have anything to say about it. Depending where you go they probably haven't even given it any thought. Finally, if you're really serious about getting into this, look into joining BECTU, or at least be on the student register. If you want to get into any sort of camerawork there are apprenticeships and schemes for new entrants. I'm a member of the camera branch committee for the London production division. If you really want to get into camera, particularly big films and TV shows, there's never been a better time in London. - Phil
  12. 1 point
    Robin, the initial post has no reference to a film being "ruined" because it was shot digital. People have commented that the trailer looks video-ish and cheap but that is not a comment about the quality of the story. Nobody has dismissed the film. How can they, nobody has seen it yet. Forgive me but you often get very agitated about things that are not actually being said.
  13. 1 point
    The tech sheets seem to indicate that 250D is grainier, but also sharper than 50D. It also looks to have more of a toe in its characteristic curve, so more forgiving to underexposure while having less shadow separation. I sure miss the XTR Prod. What a handheld camera. Jarin
  14. 1 point
    If you're shooting on a soundstage or the film is animated, boards can be a brilliant starting point. You can conceive of the images you want and plan accordingly. An example would be The Matrix which used concept art in the boards and the final film is very close. If however, you're an ultra low budget shoot and you have no ability to build or change anything in your real locations, then you are better off visiting locations ahead of time and doing a board with an actual camera and then laying out those frames in advance so you know what to get when you back for real. It's kind of a camera / blocking rehearsal done well in advance of the shoot with standins and this can save a ton of time later on cause you can pick and choose your angles and know what will work.
  15. 1 point
    I would much rather see a great film than a boring film, no matter how it was shot. But you can't tell from the trailer if this film is going to be any good (the subject matter is very timely though and maybe that is why Malick chose to go digital? To connect history to today?) But that wasn't the point of the OP. I have noticed that every time somebody voices a preference for film on here, you are nearly always there getting all defensive in favor of digital. Personally, I love the whole analogue process but that doesn't make me blind to a good film, whatever medium.
  16. 1 point
    Thats a shame .. but also its a very compressed image on the inter web.. Im sure it looks different on the big screen.. actually in this form / compression you probably really couldn't tell if this is film or video in a million years .. film can be shot to look very sharp.. and digital to be very soft..
  17. 1 point
    I was using him as an example to back up what I said .. the thread is not "who is the best DP in the world "..? Did I say film is not as good as digital.. this is always the defensive argument of the film fanboy.. no ?.. he says that he lights the same .. he is a top DP who is working with both mediums .. if your question is, would I follow his words rather than arm chair pixel peeps on the inter web.. then yes ..a resounding yes..
  18. 1 point
    we arnt talking about personal opinions .. I stated that even very high end DP,s have been known not to be able to tell the difference. you claimed otherwise.. I put forward Roger Deakins as an example .. and a pretty heavy weight one at that .. I rest my case your honor
  19. 1 point
    Your words.".Iam sure even the best DP,s can tell".. well Roger Deakins is probably the best living DP.. certainly one of the biggest back catalogue s in film and digital with many different looks .. so Im making that point .. in a lucid, logical .. even masterly way..
  20. 1 point
    Roger Deakins has said this when being interviewed a few times..he couldn't tell if a film he was watching was film or digital .. he's also not afraid of using it.. and lights exactly the same .. thats what he says .. and really I do think he knows what he's talking about .. yes its a forum about camera work.. thats what Im saying .. people are not seeing the woods for the tress .. getting obsessed with Digital meaning a film is ruined by using it.. its like saying the only "good" films are in BW.. Im sure this would have been hot topic at the time if they had the inter web ..
  21. 1 point
    It all depends. Every director and project is different. I think to be effective, the director needs to work closely with the storyboard artist. It really helps if the locations and sets have been scouted before making the storyboards too. When shooting complicated scenes such as action scenes with stunts etc., storyboards can be indispensable in capturing the scene. And, once in a while, the movie actually matches the storyboard 🙂 Bicycle chariot chase scene from "Me You He She" directed by David Dodson. David created a guide book for capturing this scene and we had time to just shoot the storyboard with no additional coverage. This was a life saver for us.
  22. 1 point
    A 25-ft. roll of Kodak Pan reversal film in Double-Eight cost $2.25 in the summer of 1932, returned as processed 8mm film comprising 4,000 frames. That would be $42.14 as of today. A 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodak Pan reversal cost $6 then, today $112.37, also 4,000 frames. A 100-ft. roll of Kodacolor reversal cost $9 in 1932, today’s $168.55. The first rolls of Kodachrome as Double-Eight cost $3.75 in 1936 ($69.22), a 100-ft. roll of 16mm Kodachrome $9 processing and return included ($166.13). https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
  23. 1 point
    Malick is an acquired taste but I find that since he switched to digital, his films tend to feel quite cheap? I don't know, this one especially feels cheap to me.
  24. 1 point
    A few things... 1. A "middle" grey card is not in the center of the optimum exposure range. At the standard rated ISO exposure, it will be about 1/2 stop below the middle, compared to the "X" crossover on a video greyscale chart. 2. When viewing dynamic range on film vs. a digital camera, the DR refers to areas where detail is visible vs. not visible. But this does not mean that the quality of detail at the extremes is the same as the quality of detail in the middle of the range. While detail in the deep shadows can be distinguished, it is very grainy, which is disguised by the compression of the detail in the characteristic curve as rendered on a print. On the highlight end of the curve, it is not so grainy, but also not so detailed either, and there could be some color shifting. So, it's best to think of the range of tones that you are capturing as about 6 to 8 stops, with everything above and below as "roll off" into shadows and highlights. This is especially true in 16mm where you are enlarging the grain of the film much more than on 35mm film. 3. When you "push" the film processing, you are gaining "exposure" in the middle by loosing detail in the shadows. So, if when you expose normally you would get 2.5 to 3 stops of detail below your grey card exposure, when pushed 1 stop you will get 1.5 to 2 stops of detail below your grey card exposure. Also when pushing, instead of 3 to 4 or 5stops of usable detail above the grey card, by over development of the negative, you will likely loose a stop there as well. So, when exposing film for push processing, instead of a perceived DR of 6 to 8 stops, it's more like 5 to 7 stops. Personally, I feel that push processing 16mm film is a pretty harsh look. And, if you do, I would light and expose the film as if you were limited to 5 1/2 stops. 2.5 stops below the grey card and 3 stops above.
  25. 1 point
    I meant this model, NOT the m4/3 normal E2 model: http://www.z-cam.com/e2-s6/ they are developing raw options for their cameras. we just started to use the regular E2 model for documentary stuff and it manages very well in that environment, especially when needing the remote controls. the integrated monitor thing is not important for most users if they are really doing work-related stuff and not super low end vimeography as a hobby. A fixed non-orientable monitor on the back of the camera is just not usable at all in any real production environment, not even in low budget indie films. If you really want to do anything with the camera you will need a separate onboard monitor anyway. the built in display on the Pocket is usable though if one is so low budget that cannot even afford proper lenses to put on the camera... It is nice to hear that the regular Pocket has been reliable in most uses. by my experience the Blackmagic hardware tends to be cheap build quality and unreliable at times so it would be great if they would have at least one product which does not release smoke and die in the middle of the production XD probably the 6K Pocket will not be delivered in time like has happened with all their camera models. Still better though than the Nikon Z6 raw option, they NEVER deliver the promised features not even one year late :P
  26. 1 point
    Modern digital cameras often do not see saturated colour very clearly, and there isn't a very good solution to it. The problem is that, instinctively, one would assume that the RGB filters on a Bayer-patterned sensor would be bright, saturated, primary colours. They're not. Often they're pretty desaturated, which helps with sensitivity (by not filtering out too much light). It also helps with sharpness, because the RGB images from the Bayer sensor are not as different as we'd expect; it's easier to infer where sharp edges are in the image since all of the pixels can see most of them. The result is a picture with rather reduced saturation. This can be corrected with what a specialist might generally call "matrixing," but which basically means "winding the saturation up." This works to a degree, but subtle distinctions between colours can be reduced; for instance, a lot of Bayer cameras can have trouble telling purple from blue, and it can introduce chroma noise if people try too hard to tease out the colorimetry. There are a lot of caveats to all of this. Higher end cameras are more likely to use more saturated filters, accept the sensitivity and sharpness hit, and achieve better colorimetry as a result. An Alexa is not a great example because it's far from the latest technology, but it was never a design which targeted massive sharpness or huge sensitivity. It does, though, have a nice colour response. Also, the human eye works very much in the same way; it does have red, green and blue-sensitive cells, perhaps better described as long-wavelength, medium-wavelength and short-wavelength because they have a very broad sensitivity that overlaps a lot, much like a camera sensor. I don't know if what you're describing is caused by all this, but it's likely it has at least some impact. P
  27. 1 point
    That's true, Adam. Excellence is as rare as it ever was. In terms of popular music at least, the music was definitely better in the Beatles day than today. I think that's beyond dispute. Interesting to speculate on why that might be. Something to do with the general tone of society now. A lot of the films, let's take for example music videos, now have a continually dystopic theme to them. They tend not to vary from that. Sad, dejected faces. Hopelessness. A sense of energy and life is needed in art - not all the time, but most of the time. Creative works should be like a kind of food. Maybe in a way a kind of spiritual food. Are these works usable, valuable, in some sense? Do people derive something useful from them? Are their lives somehow enriched, even in a tiny way, by them?
  28. 1 point
    David, while you are correct that it is not necessary to be either an expert or likeable in order to be right, being likeable has other benefits. On a forum like this, where most members will carry on conversations over a period of months or even years, and yet never meet each other, it is only natural that people will be curious about each others backgrounds and experience. Knowing what experience informs the attitudes of our fellows makes it easier to understand their views, and helps to avoid unnecessary arguments, particularly in a medium where nuance and tone are hard to convey. You evidently have strongly held opinions on a variety of subjects, and you appear to be well informed, but it's also true to say that you are extremely aggressive in your tone when responding to others with whom you disagree, and you seem very willing to attack the poster, rather than the post. That's not good for anyone involved. May I suggest that we turn the heat down under this conversation, and keep it friendly.
  29. 1 point
    The longer I do this, the more a realize that filmmaking is almost an impossible task to succeed at. The odds are so stacked against you, it's like winning a lottery ticket if it turns out great. I have nothing but respect for those that manage to pull of filmmaking and have every department pull in the same direction, despite all the odds, and elevate into something else. I also started out thinking it was easy. Now I know better.
  30. 1 point
    Ursa Mini Pro. Nikon Series E.
  31. 1 point
    I've used the CP2's with film cameras, but I'm not much of a fan due to the cost. It really depends on what features you're looking for in a lens? If you want a fast wide angle lens, that's going to cost a lot of money vs a slow longer or standard 24, 35, 50mm lens. I could only afford what I bought, which were the Rokinon Xeen's and let me tell ya, nobody can tell what they are with the final footage on film. People spend so much time focused on glass, they kinda forget that most glass is fine. I had some college kid argue with me about my recently serviced Optar primes "not being good enough" for his student film. It's that kind of attitude which kills me. I'd rather have three lenses that work, for the price of 1 lens that doesn't do anything better, but has a more recognizable brand name on the side.
  32. 1 point
    Got my hands on the legendary David Lean lens, a 500mm (or 482mm if pedantic) telephoto that was designed by Panavision specifically for the long shot of Omar Sharif entering from a mirage in the far distance and riding on a camel all the way into a close shot. One of the greatest telephoto shots (and entrances) in cinema. And here's the lens on my test projector: Minimum focus is 23 ft, which is just about the length of my projection room!
  33. 0 points
    Roger Deakins has said this .. you want better than that .. same way a whole lot of ASC DP,s chose the Canon 5D on a blind camera test ..
  34. 0 points
    I second that. This is a forum about cinematography after all. A discussion about the tools used to tell a story is part of the cinematographer's job. The trailer looks like a story I want to watch and I am intrigued by the composition and wide angle shots. Yet sometimes it does feel like you are watching a video. It does feel digital. To say that top cinematographers can not tell the difference is not quite true, is it? Yes, there are films that have been shot digital and worked on in post to look like film quite successfully. And there are analogue films that didn't take advantage of what analogue does offer. and maybe Malick chose the digital look for a reason. But one can't say that this looks the same as film. It doesn't.
  35. -1 points
    Agreed ! lets not put that chestnut back in the fire 🙂 .. everyone has their own preferences .. my point is only that I think if a film is strong enough in the more important ,basic points of script /acting /direction.. the medium shouldn't matter at all.. I hate 48p visually .. but I would, hopefully, not actually even notice it after 5 minutes if the film was good.. you would be in the story completely .. the whole Digital /film debate shouldn't even exist these days.. where the difference visually is pretty much non existent .. even top DP,s can't tell.. its like saying the flavor of the pop corn in the cinema is ruining the film..
  36. -1 points
    I wouldn´t agree with that! However digital is good these days, but im sure even the best DP´s can tell the difference… and it can totaly distract the audiance when a period- movie looked like that… not saying that this trailer does look terrible but i got distracted by the look. And i loved wide-angled shots chivo does on the prior mallick movies.
  37. -1 points
    Uff… there is no "best" living DP. (That was my quote for your " even top DP,s can't tell.. " ) thats really Fanboy talk… however… even if i like some of rogers work im sure he would agree with me that film is an art form… and our tools are the Artists choice and there is guranteed a visible differnce between analog & digital - and thats also a personal taste not a rule. As you can see in this discussion already.
  • Create New...