Jump to content

Phil Connolly

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    565
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Phil Connolly

  1. A big theatrical follow spot would have more then enough punch to do this. To be honest with faster digital cameras - you'd probably be able to replicate this shot using a source 4 for the key. Source 4's have built in cutters to shape the light. http://www.etcconnect.com/Products/Lighting-Fixtures/Source-Four/
  2. Personal taste is of course personal taste. My previous comments were a bit blunt.
  3. I think it would be difficult to get even fog, in anywhere beyond very small spaces. At $102 that's v pricey. You can get disco type fogger for half that. Which would better be able to fill a space and give you more flexibility in different fog fluids. Looks like an expensive vape pen
  4. Yuck - bit too magenta for my taste. I wouldn't hold those LUT's (or whatever) as great examples of grading. The photography is good (maybe your responding to that), but for me the colour correction is working against the footage.
  5. Well Heart Shaped Box is pretty stylised as well, def feels like its a studio. Which is fine if thats the look your going for. There are other films that have built exterior sets indoors and made them look like day light more convincingly. e.g Sleepy Hollow, Labyrinth etc... I would stick to tungsten film. The result of using tungsten lights on tungsten films vs daylight lights on daylight film - should be roughly similar colour wise (thats the point). 200T or 500T are much more workable lightingwise. It would be very hard to get the light level bright enough for 50D. When you look at period films shot on slow speed stocks (wizzard of oz etc...) the lighting looks really fake because they are having to punch in so much hard light to get exposure
  6. Maybe dig through the archive and read David Mullens excellent thread on Manure. Lots of discussion around studio based EXT sets.
  7. I would take the naturalistic approach. I would only add lighting depending on whats happening in the scene. There wouldn't be any light beyond what the actors are carrying if they are exploring a new bit. Or if it's a tourist 'show cave' it would be lit up like a Christmas tree. Something like flashlight, glo sticks and practical lanterns used carefully would give you enough shape. Keep it motivated and these days you don't need much light for exposure on modern cameras. The Desent is probably a good example of caving portrayed well on film. Even of the first hour is about one of the most stressful film watching experiences you can have.
  8. It really depends on the prod co and the job and the kind of overheads. Normally you'd cost the job, add extra to cover overheads (e.g office rent, insurance, internet, marketing etc..) then the profit margin is a per cent on top. Probably closer to 10 or 15% then 50%. Or there may be no profit on some jobs, which is still fine if everyone gets paid and it generates turn over. Profit might not be expressed in the budget as a percent on top, since thats the first thing the client would haggle on. But normally each line item is padded. For instance I could hire a crew member for £350 per day, the client would be charged £500 per day for the same crew member. That padding would be to cover the additional costs of hiring (insurance, admin etc) and some profit. Profit is simply whats left over, so if your billing the client £50k and it costs you £40k then your profit is £10k. However if you've fully accounted for your costs against the budget a job my be worthwhile with little or no profit. Since profit is the money you make on top of your fee's, you still make money on a job that breaks even (e.g everyones salery, overheads and expenses is covered) . You might opt for less profit on jobs that give you a good showreel etc.. Also some companies have more overheads then others so would have to either charge more or spend less on each production. Profit is separate to fee's and salaries. E.g your director wouldn't normally get any profits. They would just get an agreed fee for the shoot. So would everyone, including the producer. The company owners would decide whats done with the profit, either reinvest it in the company or pay it out as dividends to the owners/shareholders. Profit is useful for expanding and mandatory if you have shareholders. But a small to mid size company has to be flexible. I once went to a business seminar with the MD's of Framestore (Oscar winning VFX firm). Although they turn over 10's of million a year. They work on a very tight profit margin of about 5%.
  9. I think its quite hard to judge anything from the examples because they've been effected by youtube compression and maybe bounced to lower formats. The distortion at the top of the frame on the love parade video - looks pretty extreme for Beta-SP, more likely this is Hi-8 or U-Matic. Although its possible the footage was digitally originated Digit-Beta came out in 93 and I understand German broadcasters always focused on quality and adopted the format quite quickly. I worked for Channel 4 and they went digital in 1994 for programme delivery. Initially with D5 which was used by some people before Digi-beta took hold. Its also possible the footage could be D3 9 (composite digital-yuck) which came out in 91 and then copied to analogue later. On a good day with a good source Beta-SP can look pretty close to digi-beta. I worked at a broadcast TV channel 2004 to 2008 and we got the odd music video master in on Beta-SP (mostly film originated) a lot of the time they still looked really good. You had to look quite close to tell the difference between them and Digi. But by the time they were mashed up on transmission, its really hard to judge the difference. It was always a shock to see how horrible the off air feed looked compared to the master tapes. Beta-SP as a format is better then DVCAM, it is pretty representative of what the cameras captured. So if you want a 90's look and want to save on tape. You'd get very similar results using a 90's camera and capture to a digital disk recorder. If your after grunge I think Hi-8 has a bit more texture and more visible drop outs. The other option would be to shoot digital and bounce the rushes to Hi-8 to pick up some artefacts. Then you have the work flow advantages of not lugging a large camera/tapes/caputre etc... For instance with careful post its probably possible to make iphone footage look similar to 90's SD tape Another feature of the period is CCD cameras give quite different results to the modern CMOS. So if you good with a digital cam - picking somethings got a small CCD chip and then bounce to analogue tape is going to get you close to the look. Colour balance, contrast, highlights are easily manipulated in post. Older video cameras typically gave more contrasty images - clipping sooner. This can be faked in post if your using a modern camera with more lattitude.
  10. https://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/standard-8-film.html
  11. Part of sitcom process is the have the lights on dimmers controlled via a desk. This lets you dial in a look very quickly. Also its nice to quickly dim the lights between takes to limit heat build up if your using lots of tungsten
  12. More and more sitcoms are tending to single camera shoots. These are lit the same way as anything else and don't have "sitcom" lighting, just film lighting. Depending on the look can be achieved with minimal lighting units. At the lower budget range this is the way to go. To do a proper multi-cam sitcom you need a lot of resources. I directed a multi-cam sitcom when I was an MA student at the NFTS. The logistics were not for the faint of heart. We built an office set which took 4 workers about 3 weeks to complete. The set took 2 days to pre-light. We went fully tungsten on dimmers about 80 to 100KW worth of fixtures. Giving a nice bright look that was like filming in a blast furnace. We had a couple of image 80's on floor stands that could be moved around as well. Its quite difficult to pull of an interesting cinematic look this way, ours ended up looking a bit flat and sitcom. If I was remaking the script I'd be looking for a location, shooting single camera and pushing the look darker. The main advantage of multi-cam is the speed. With well rehearsed actors and good crew you can smash through an episode in about 3 hours to shoot.
  13. Focal length's really depend on what look your trying to achieve, same with normal cinematography. That said I would imagine a lot of the time you might err on the longer length of lenses to give the animators a bit of room to work. With wider focal lengths you might end up with the camera and lens butting right up against the model and risk being within the MOD. I don't do stop motion, but whenever I'm doing product photography - my go to lenses tend to be the 85mm and 135mm - but thats very much a personal thing.
  14. My local has been providing the service for awhile: The rooms smell of damp to enhance horror film basement scenes The chairs move and vibrate - due to minimal leg room encouraging seat kickers Surround sound is offered in the form of teenagers and pensioners chatting all the way through Interactive lighting effects are provided using various phone screens Multiple Language's offered by the "English as a foreign language" students from the local collage summer school Not being a fan of such gimmicks, i tend to watch more and more films at home.
  15. Aardman have be using old Nikon lenses for their stop motion films
  16. I am not arguing against film or that it's not worthwhile. Just that to shoot film cheaper then digital you tend to have to jump through some hoops. E.g short ends, very low shooting ratio, very expensive digital. I know of a filmmaker shooting films on tiny budgets with 16mm. But it's DIY processed 16mm on a 2:1 shooting ratio. It's possible to make a good film this way. But it's pretty non standard. So yes film can be done cheaper and maybe digital can be expensive too. What I am against are these blanket statements that go out on this forum of "film is cheaper" without qualifying them. Because 9 times out of 10 it's not
  17. Still its a bit of a straw man argument, film is cheaper because on expensive shows Panavision and Union DIT's over charge for digital gear. I guess its possible to argue that digital is more expensive on the grounds that big budget productions don't budget carefully ( and of course we know they don't). But on a modest production, with a good PM thats shopped around to source all the staff and equipment - as Tylers own figures show film costs more. If there was minimal price impact of shooting on film vs digital, we'd all be doing it a lot more
  18. I think thats just magical thinking - what deal are they getting with Kodak where 10,000ft of film costs less then a days hire of an Alexa and a stack of hard disks? The cost of 10,000 ft of 35mm stock is more then a weeks hire of high end digital camera and thats before you even process the footage. In the UK the book rate of 10,000 ft of Kodak 35mm is £3875. I can hire an Alexa Mini body for around £500 per day. A DIT maybe costs £350 per day, £500 would be more then enough for data storage for a single days Alexa rushes. So even if they got the 35mm kit for free, all the lab work and transfers for free(good luck getting that) - they would still need a greater then 50% discount on the Kodak stock just to break even with an Alexa shoot cost wise. Film lenses cost the same to hire as digital lenses do they not? All the other bits and bobs grip, matt boxes etc cost either the same or less on a digital shoot. The only really saving is perhaps a 35mm camera body can be hired for less then an Alexa body. But I don't see why you'd get extra discounts for lenses and support gear on a 35mm shoot, its mostly the same stuff I love film, but stories like this don't seem credible. I would find it hard to believe any feature budget would find digital costing $150k more then film, unless its comparing Alexa 65 vs Super 16 or some other very unique uneven situation. Or do US DIT's cost several thousand dollars a day to hire?
  19. It has not got image stabilisation. I did a project handheld using the Panasonic 14-140mm zoom that does have internal stabilisation, last week and it turned out ok. I'm more of a tripod person so it tends not to matter to me , but there are lenses that can help. At the price point I don't think you can expect more then the basics, sure ND, good ergonomics, better battery life and SDI would all be great to have. But they would push the price up. I have access to an FS7 but already the BM pocket is turning into my goto camera for certain projects, because I can just fit it and a couple of lenses in a small bag and travel light. I still do the odd central London job where public transport is needed to get to the location. The ability to fit everything into a bag that you can take on the tube, go through barriers - is huge. Combined with the great low light, meaning I can get away with just bringing a reflector or single small LED source for interviews. Its very practical for those jobs. And this is from someone who was very angry with black magic 1 month ago and considering cancelling my order. BM has won me round...
  20. I've already shot two projects. It completely saved my bacon in a dark location, requiring 5000 and 10,000 ISO to get enough exposure. The footage that came out was quite useable, grainy but in a nice way 10,000 iso looks a bit like 500 ISO 16mm The only issues I have is the ergonomics are not great, I'm going to have to get a rig. The internal battery life is also poor - between 30 and 50 mins each charge dependant on resolution, again going to have to source an alternate power source
  21. There are two entry level jobs in film production: "Runner/PA" and "Director" - thats a old joke but you get the point. You can try climbing the "ladder" it will help make you contacts and get know etc... but it won't actually prepare you for the creative task of directing. I would recommend you just start making stuff, maybe videos for friends bands on no budget. keep working gradually get better, build up from micro budget to whatever. Since kit is now easy to access - nothing to stop you makeing stuff and experimenting. Plenty of good music video directors: Dougal Wilson, Hammer and Tongs (sorry dated ref's but google) only ever worked as directors but built up from project to project. Working on other peoples sets will help but only gets you so far, you need to test your own ideas and creativity in practice
  22. I agree resolve is the best bang for (no) buck out there. I used to use Apple Color and it had a really nice work flow and was powerful. Shame they killed it off on the roll out of FCP X. I've had good experiences with Baselight - it works great and the runners bring you food and drinks. I have to get my own drinks when using Resolve at home.
  23. Had a play with it today. They are excellent, the screen is really sharp, they are easy to set up, images out the box look great, good latitude and low light is v impressive. Just pointing it at the office in random lighting looked great. This is going to be the goto budget camera, the ergonomics without flip screen are a bit fiddly but i guess manageable with a rig. Might have to order a few more - I think these are going to be the perfect replacement for our stock of canon DLSR's. Shame they don't do an EF mount since our lenses are mostly EF and the adaptor is an extra expense.
  24. The Film Truthers are the same as Flat Earthers, it doesn't matter you can prove digital is cheaper using numbers and facts. They will still present some theory about shooting ratios and short ends that proves digital costs more. Right gotta go measure the horizon
  25. and perhaps worth the wait. They are very impressive at the price point.
×
×
  • Create New...