Jump to content

Phil Connolly

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Phil Connolly

  1. Nice - looks great, the location was perfect and the edit was nicely paced. The twist landed at about the right time - I only guessed it about 30 secs before it was revealed.
  2. Thanks Bruce will investigate - I didn't know they did a recent 2/3 version I guess the S35mm Varicams don't do a live 2/3" crop for multicam. I know the Ursa Mini does - but its not amazing in 2K mode.
  3. If your doing pack shots - longer lenses work best. Something in the 85 to135mm range works for me. You might not need the follow focus - if your not pulling focus on shot Would probably need some softer lighting - either soft sources or lighting modifiers to make the Arri Frensels soft: e.g poly board or reflector, couple of flags, couple of C-Stands, maybe a dimmer...
  4. Hmm thanks for the comments - I was considering the S35 crop option. But wonder if 2K Beyer crop would look worse then a 3chip 1080p type camera. But good to here Robin had good results with the vari cam. I'm just curious to see if standard 2/3" cameras have improved from the 400ISO of ten years ago. I'm assuming most have moved over from CCD to CMOS - which is better at low light. But as Phil R said stats are harder to find and decode on broadcast kit. The camera position is going to locked off - basically its an event in a venue where the rear camera position is about 50metres from the stage. It can't be forward of that because it will block the audience. But ideally needs to be able to get a mid shot from 50 meters. So using an online calculator gave me 500mm for a 1.2m wide shot and 1000mm for 60cm width at 50m. Hence the canon looking like the goto lens. The venue is a Cathedral so columns prevent putting the camera closer at the side. Has to be square on at the back. I imagine operating will be tricky but its mostly static shots and I've have to spec a really solid head. The thing thats out my control is the lighting and these lenses are slow. Hence the worry about camera speed. I did think of going full broadcast box zoom - like the canon 72X Digisuper - which is a bit faster. But that starts to push the budget. Looking for a mid range option. If this looks like its going to happen - I'll def try and test the Varicam and see if it intercuts with the other cameras. I'll get some quotes on the Grass Valley as well but seems outside of OB companies fewer places carry them.
  5. Hi I'm speccing some gear for a multi-cam shoot. I need an extreme telephoto zoom lens, I think the Canon HJ18ex28B (28mm to 500mm or 1000mm with 2x extender) is the one to go for, I don't need the size or the zoom range of a box lens, but something that can shoot a mid shot from 50 meters. I'm not really current on 2/3" broadcast cams but anyone know which is best for low light? The shoot is going to be in a Cathedral and I may not be able to add much light. The lens is pretty slow F4.9 @ 500mm and worse with the extender (which I think I'm going to have to use). Are HD 2/3" cameras workable in the 2000ASA range, noise wise? Last time I used a 2/3" it was CCD camera and at best could be pushed to 800, but hopefully things have moved moved on in the last 10 years. Any broadcast experienced peeps on the forum? I understand a super 35mm sensor would be better in low light - but would that be problematic marrying with a B4 type zoom lens. Mathmatically I think I need to be able to use a lens in the 500mm to 700mm range on a 2/3" sensor to get the shot size. So am I correct in thinking their isn't an easy way to get this degree of telephoto with 35mm gear?
  6. Like the lighting - has a nice look overall. I don't think the music works - its too upbeat and busy. It fights the voice over, too much going on in the same frequency. Also it feels at odds with the image and VO - they are darker and melancholic and the music is too happy, jars. The images suggest a more Clint Mansell esq track
  7. Agree - I don't think their should be a quota either. But this year their have been quite a few best picture contenders directed by women. I haven't seen "can you ever forgive me" - yet "Leave no trace" is my fav movie of the last couple of years Imagine if they only had a single "Best Actor" oscar, rather then Best Male/Female..... I guess it will just water down its already waining brand.
  8. I'm getting seriously close to cancelling my order - but I still can't match the prices on similar gear. Its def a problem not having the gear - I expected a 3 month wait but 6 months is Extracting the Micheal. Whats getting frustrating is reading the BM forum and seeing that plenty of people in the US ordered in Dec and already have their cameras. They are prioritising some markets over other - the UK seems to be getting minimal stock As a Uni we've probably spent close to £200k on BM gear over the last 5 years - we have 6 multi-camera studio rigs built round their gear. I will be making sure we don't spec anymore BM kit its not worth the stress. So they will miss out on future orders, we also have 100's of Media production students that I can poison against Black Magic.
  9. I did also think "Big LCD TV" and do the shot in camera. If the mirror was held at 45 degrees pointing down the screen could be placed horizontally - in a "peppers ghost" arraignment. The trick would be to make the mirror not look like its held at an angle, I guess if the DOF was shallow enough it would be soft enough. I guess their is more flexibility to adjust the shot in post and you could decide how sharp the mirror is and retime and rack focuses - but that would need some skill on the compositors part. The other thing I would do in this situation is ask the compositor what would they prefer. They will be happy to tell you what elements they need. If your comping it yourself - then I'd spend sometime practising in AE prior to the shoot to see what results your able to get.
  10. I think its particularly an issue this year when you have "Leave no trace" and "You were never really here" - both stunning films and directed by women - they could have so easily got a bit more gender diversity by including in the noms
  11. Its probably possible to track without any colour but I guess you could risk loosing the edges - if it reflects something of similar density to background. Covering it with a colour thats distinct enough from the surroundings would make life easier. It also depends where the actors fingers are, if they don't go in front of the mirror then a simple corner pin track would work and its simple. If the edges of the shard are crisply in focus they can serve as their own tracking marks if contrast is good. Otherwise its Keying or Roto of some combination of to cut round the fingers- might get tricky if the hands cast a shadow on the glass. Also Super 16 can be less good for comping if your using faster stocks. So use the slowest stock you can get away with to give you as much detail and small amount of grain to work with. The issue in your reference shot is the shard of glass is out of focus - that may make comping difficult. But it might look weird if the reflected mountains are in focus and your shard is in focus at the same time - it would be two points of focus unless you settled for very deep DOF. If you want the soft edges of the shard like the photo. It might be a case of shooting the glass in focus and digitally defocusing it after the comp - leaving the mountains sharp. Are you going to do a focus pull - e.g from the infinity of the mountains to the hand and the shard? Again I'd do that in post - It won't work as well in camera - if the shard is out of focus, you have to guess at where the edges are to insert the comp. Deep DOF may be the answer. - Considering your plane of focus is important. test test test.. easily done digitally to see what works prior to burning film stock
  12. London to Brighton Cube Adulthood Koyaanisqatsi The Constant Gardener (segments) Primer Following Dog Soldiers Clerks Chasing Amy This is England Vera Drake Dead Mans Shoes This is Spinal Tap Best in Show Moonrise Kingdom Beasts of the Southern Wild The Hurt Locker Leaving Las Vegas Slacker Last King of Scotland (mostly) TV: Spooks Nathan Barley Garth Marengi's Darkplace Hustle Top Boy (Anamorphic 1.33X for 2.39)
  13. Wooden Stands? Really? - Oh dear oh dear. That must be a "London" thing. Ooop north we hold our lights, with our bare hands. Of course it takes a 10 year apprenticeship with the lamp holders guild before a young pledge is allowed anything larger then a 2K. Gives time for the callouses to develop (gloves of course are frowned on).
  14. What are these? Schrodinger's C-Stands? - They both do and don't exist in the UK. gah
  15. They are so common on the Sussex coast, they wash up on the beach. We call them "Sea-Stands"
  16. I think the multi-cam approach is worthwhile if you have a live studio audience - it does create a different performance in the actors and helps time the gags. Its harder to do comedy when the performers don't have an audience to bounce off. But live studio creates lots of limitations and compromises as well. In balance I prefer single camera sitcoms "Spaced, Good Place, Scrubs" etc... I've done a few bits and bobs of multicam studio, as both cam op and director - always found it hyper stressful. I was always so nervous about just keeping on top of the shots. Content would fall by the wayside. Its an incredibly difficult art form to master.
  17. Large sensors work against you in the studio and the dynamic range isn't needed under controlled lighting. When you operating a Ped, you may have a shot where you Jib up, Dolly, Zoom and have to pull focus (at the same time) - trying do that with 2 hands is not great. Hence a lot of the time you need the deep focus of a small sensor. On sitcoms in front of a live audience... You only have one proper take to get it and you need a good fast zoom range to make sure you can stay out of each others shots, once you get to 5 camera it gets busy. In this situation aesthetics take second fiddle to practicality. I can shoot nicer images on my DLSR then the JVC studio cams we have in our main studio.. but I would never attempt a multicam live sitcom on DLSR's.
  18. I've been using Scrivener for the last few projects. Affordable, flexible on the layout formats and allows you to create scene cards - move them around and just write one scene at a time. I like the way you only see the scene your working on at a time. Back when I had the whole document in a scroll, the temptation is to re-read the previous days work and then you start editing it and you never move forward, but keep messing with the first few scenes. Scrivener mitigates against that. I'm a fan. Nice thing about scrivener is it has a 30 day free trial that only applies on the days you write. So your free trial may last several months if you only write a couple of days a week. Or just use Fountain - then you can use any text editor
  19. In the Uk the list price of the fuji is £300 more then the price I got on the BM. But maybe I could get a better deal on the fuji If I talked to the dealer about academic discount. I think the 4k BM is the best bang for your buck and if you don't have many bucks But I totally take your point about the camera in the hand is worth more then the stupid BM camera that takes a year to come. I'm kind of stuck because I've brought the accessories with the BM in mind and if I did get a refund I would have extra money - so would have to get a worse camera. Will have to keep waiting.
  20. All a little more expensive. I probably wouldn't have been able to afford 5 kits. Got a really good price on the BM pockets (well it will be good price if they turn up)
  21. Gear can depreciate - better not to think it as an investment but rather what it allows you to do. If you sold it now what use could you put the money towards - could that kickstart your next film production. Its better to be making films any which way with what every resources you have to hand, thats how you learn and grow. Better to keep turning over small projects and building momentum then saving up for the "masterwork". In the same time period you might be able to become "investible" and receive funding due to having built a portfolio. I've avoided owning kit, to get enough to do proper drama production is expensive and it would be sitting idol 99% of the time. Even if I made a micro budget feature that would mean kit I owned would get 3-4 weeks use in a 2 -3 year period. This year I'm probably making a single short film - no point owning kit for a 5 day shoot. Renting is comparatively cheap, amazing deals and rates are possible if your prepared to be flexible and perhaps use kit that less popular. There must be 1000's of Red 1's gathering dust that could be put to use etc...
  22. Quite - I got caught out with a 13 month wait for the BM 4k Production cameras. Was hoping they had learn't some lessons and got their act together resulting in just a few month delay. Been waiting 6 months now, v annoying. I wish I could learn my lesson but I work at a University in interesting times (from a budget perspective), so need to make every penny count. Black Magic stuff is so keenly priced its kinda worth the risk on delivery. If I canceled the order what could I get in the price range? Not much....
  23. Really nice, I love the long 2 shot in the car - just letting the location to the work (I'm not really sure what the Actors were saying at that point) Liked how dark you let the frame go
  24. Quite "Grand Budapest Hotel" - had 1.37, 1.85 and 2.39:1 segments all within a 1.85:1 digital container.
  25. Best book to read is John Belton's widescreen cinema It will explain the History of aspect ratios and widescreen In short Cinemascope started at a 2.55:1 aspect ratio (in the late 50's) After getting tweaked around to accommodate various sound track configurations most "scope" anamorphic prints had a 2.35:1 aspect ratio I believe in the late 70's this was tweaked down to 2.39:1 - this was to prevent splices made on the frame lines creeping on screen when projected - the slight crop prevented that. So scope films have been 2.39:1 since the late 70s/80s - thats the standard cinema scope projection. When you see 2.35:1 on IMDB or a DVD case its either from an early film or its wrong. Most people incorrectly call 2.39:1 scope - 2.35:1 for historical reasons even though its wrong. 2.40:1 isn't an actual aspect ratio - its just 2.39:1 rounded up, if a film is labelled 2.40:1 chances are its actually 2.39:1. Saying "two four oh" is slightly quicker then "two point three nine" - when a DOP uses 2.40 she knows its not actually 2.40:1 or 2.4:1 - its just a short hand. Whats printed or on imdb is created by marketing peeps and graphic designers - they won't understand the specifics of aspect ratios. Plenty of film people say "two three five" even when they know its "wrong", but it flows off the tongue in English in a nice way. Or we could stick with Flat and Scope to describe the main two ratios. The aspect ratios listed on IMDB can be wrong at lot of the time and in the early days of widescreen (50s, 60s) there were many AEs in use: 1.66:1, 1,70:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1, 2.0:1, 2.21:1, 2.35:1, 2.55:1, 2,65:1, 2.76:1 etc.. But late 70's early 80's onwards 99% of cinema content is either 1.85:1 flat or 2.39:1 scope Of course the aspect ratio flexibility digital and digital projection has offered means - we are moving towards more and different ratios - e.g imax, 2:1 etc...
×
×
  • Create New...