Jump to content

Phil Connolly

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Phil Connolly last won the day on June 20

Phil Connolly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About Phil Connolly

  • Rank

  • Birthday 01/12/1979

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Director
  • Location
    Brighton

Recent Profile Visitors

16623 profile views
  1. I dun lit this with 2 red heads, sorry for the low res, I never kept a copy, this is grab off youtube. The back light just had a bit of ND and was backed well off to get the level down. Key was a red head through 216 and a lastolite on the side bringing a bit of fill. Creating a crisp backlight is easy, the trick is to not have it OTT. I don't like it drawing attention to itself Full video here - quite happy with the lighting on Chris Hopewell as well, same deal 2 x red heads for the interview, but I got to leave the lights in the set on:
  2. If you want to shoot a "live" performance with a single camera. Do the wide shot with the musicians playing "live" and record that sound properly. That recoding now becomes your "master" audio recoding, so keep shooting till you have a take that looks and sounds good. Then for your subsequent shots get the musicians to "mime" along to your live "Master" recording. This gives a hybrid live/mined video thats again easy to sync up. The trick is to shoot a take near the start that establishes sound and then everything matches that. Otherwise you risk the musicians drifting off. This approach can look really good and fool most people into thinking its a fully live multi-camera performance. As Jon said it could be possible to put it together with the musicians playing live each time to a click track, they would have to be good, it would be more work to put the music together and combine the sound and not all musicians are great with click tracks - it would be possible to get lost. The other option is to use 2 cameras. Then you can get 2 live angles and 2 mimed angles - so it feels more live. My tutor at film school shot an Erasure video with 2 x16mm cameras at a concert. The did one pass in the sound check and another in the main concert. The footage sync up because Erasure were playing to a backing track and the speed was consistent between takes. You couldn't tell the shots were taken at different times, matched well.
  3. At this point, sounds like your jumping through so many strange hoops to make film work. Why waste stock on a compromised film option? If they aren't keen with "movie cameras", thats when digital does become a more flexible option. The location is happy with small digital 4K and its gotta be better then battling low light while attempting to push process small gauge film stock. Sometimes its better to take the path of least resistance.
  4. Widescreen Cinema by John Belton is an interesting read. Shows how widescreen technologies developed and stories behind them. Its good back ground and context for the formats we use today. After reading you can become a true aspect ratio nerd.
  5. I would have loved to see this on the big screen. The 4k Netflix version looked and sounded great
  6. I've been intrigued by Mark Jenkins approach to filmmaking using home processed 16mm. His previous short "Bronco's House" is available for free here for 1 week: https://www.lecinemaclub.com/ Its rather good. Certainly an unique look
  7. If you want things like bottle smashes to be really slow and awesome looking 48fps might not cut it. Slowmo starts too look cool in the 150 to 200 fps bracket for thinks breaking if you want to see the particles clearly. The other problem with the performer learning to lip sync at high speed means her motion will look strange as well - they will look slowed down as well, even with lip sync and a 2X speed up as David said is really hard to do. 4x or 6x to get more slow mo even more impossible. The other approach would be shoot it in two passes. Lock the camera off and shoot the background action in slow mo. Then shoot the shot again at normal speed with the singer in position. You could use a portable green screen to comp the two together or use the roto brush in after effects to cut round the singer so you can comp him on the slow background. You could shoot the singer in green screen in a studio but its easier on location to match the lighting. In terms of light levels you'd want to put ND in for the normal speed, rather then stopping down - so both show happen at the same f stop.
  8. Nah, you may wish that was the case and you may be correct in terms of the technology used. But, language doesn't work like that. The millions of people that use the term "filming" for digital moving image capture, are not going to stop because some nerds on cinematography.com state its wrong. Its not wrong, because thats the word people use, how could it be wrong? Again its not about technology, but if you go up to any English speaker and invite them to shoot some video. A very large percentage of them will state they were "filming", thats the way language works. You can't police it or control it. Its like the time, the French language people, got upset with too many Americanisms creeping into French. E.g they created an alternative French word for "Walkman", which was "Baladeur" which was used by practically no one, because the general public were happy with "Walkman". The term "filming" is out in the wild its already being used by millions to describe video recording. At this point it stops becoming incorrect and just a part of the English language. Same when radio interviewers describe they got "great tape"... I doubt they are still rocking DAT machines. If you try correct someone for using the term "filming" wrong, its only going to make you look like a pedant. Also you'd be wrong because if you take the English language as its used by most people: Filming means recording moving images, ask anyone. Language isn't a debate, its a conversation.
  9. The back up thing does stress me out when I'm supplying my own gear. I keep my trusty old 60D in the car on shoots, its good to know you can limp through on it if the Black Magic spafs out. On the fashion front I guess if Alexa is even 1% better, then on the high budget jobs thats worth the extra expense. At the commecials level its alot about image. I mean is the prod co and team that charges £500k for a 30 sec video going to be functionally better then a team that could do it £50k. Its a lot about having the balls to charge crazy prices and then the clients start to think its worth it. Alexa plays to that image in a way the trust FS7 doesn't
  10. I used to shoot similar projects at I worked at the East 15 Drama school in London for 2 years doing this, the priority was never the cinematography but giving the trainee actors experience acting in front of the camera. More time spent lighting means less time for the students to practice acting. The quality looks similar to what we would achieve, e.g that of a small crew working very quickly. Also working with inexperienced actors means they are going to miss their marks, make mistakes - this can result in buzzed focus and mistimed camera moves. I got in the habit of shooting to quite deep stops, because I couldn't be confident I'd nail the focus on the one take the acting was kind of ok. This kind of work isn't the sort of thing you should be critiquing in the context of cinematography, its more of a teaching exercise - the production values just need to be "good enough" to give the actors a realistic "on set" experience. From my own experience doing this, I was often aware of the problems with the lighting - but if your shooting a 45 min drama in 4/5 days with a crew of 2 people and trainee actors, just having something that vaguely cuts together is a good achievement.
  11. 2048 x 1107 is a 2K scanning/record resolution of 1.85:1, 35mm film. Since a 2K scan is going to be 2048 wide and the hight dependant on aspect ratio up to 4:3. If your producing a 35mm print, then you would master at 2048 x 1107 for 1.85:1 2K typically and laser record it to film at that resolution. But if your mastering for digital projection, stick to the DCI spec, it assumes a 2048 x 1080 or 4096 x 2160 chip in the projector. Ideally you want to avoid resizing if possible. The bigger challenge is for odd aspect ratio films e,g 1.66:1 or 2:1 - they aren't coved in the DCI spec. At lot of 2:1 films are letterboxed within the 1.85:1 DCI frame - even though they "could" use more pixels by using the full width of the chip.
  12. For cinema Its 1998 x 1080 - for DCI 1.85:1 flat The full 2048 width is only used in cinemas for the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. The 2048 x 1080 full container is a 1.9:1 aspect ratio , thats the actual number of pixels a 2K DLP chip has and its wider then 1.85:1. So to maximize resolution for a 1.85:1 file, it can only be 1080 pixels tall. The full hight is used and the chip is slightly wider then 1.85:1 so the sides have to be cropped down from 2048 in to 1998. For 2.39:1 the full width of the chip is used 2048 and its vertically cropped to 858. Best to stick to the DCI flat standard to avoid cinemas miss framing. Also best to conform to the correct resolution initially to avoid resizing too much If its for broadcast or web its better to 1.85:1 letterbox within 1920 x 1080 16:9 container. The DCI spec is only important if your going to make a cinema DCP. For 4K double the numbers
  13. The photography really does stand up. However, I did find the film overall look a bit dated from a production design POV, also its very unbalanced in its gender representation, they should have cast the net a bit wider, I'd have made the "Buzz" character female. But the biggest problem is how ridiculous the whole thing is. As, if an entire country can come together in that way behind a scientific ideal. Governments can't even fix things like homelessness, hunger or healthcare - so a space programme, not credible, even if its a fun idea
  14. Hi Osman, I think its a good idea to use the forum as a sounding board for ideas. Sometimes you can get stuck on an idea and an external input helps. One of my film students was struggling to get permission to shoot in a grave yard. I asked him why he needed a grave yard. He responded that he needed to show one of the characters had died. I asked him if there were other ways he could he could achieve that visually. That was all the prompting he needed to come up with a better solution. Sometimes you can't see the wood from the trees. I've done similar things where I wish I'd talked ideas through and taken suggestions. I think often we try to overcomplicate things and ignore the simple/obvious solution. Maybe because its "too easy" but very often the most straight forward approach is best. Don't delete the thread it shows working out and illuminates your thought process for others. Good luck with the shoot and do post the completed video when its done - I'm curious to see what you had in mind.
  15. Technically is well shot and the clone effect is neatly done. But as others have said when the figures are so small its a frustrating watch - you want to see the instruments being played in detail and see the singers face. Personally I like to see the musicianship on a video, more traditional coverage isn't a bad thing. Maybe the concept would have worked better if you used the same basic composition but either did more extreme zooms onto the figures (even if it goes grainy) or just cut in some close ups. So keep the wide with the clones - but have some tighter shots to ground it. The opening frame is quite good. Just needs more development. Maybe treat this as a camera test and rework it to include more shots or thing of other ways to develop it - once you have the idea of "clones" what other things could you do with the concept. Being quite aggressive with the edit I find works on music videos. This was my attempted at a "Locked off" music video: sync seems a bit loose - even on the super wide shot the guy hitting the box thing seems to be a couple of frames off the beat. Some of the clones are more "on beat" then others - but at times feels a bit iffy.
×
×
  • Create New...