Alex Wuijts

They're showing it in The Netherlands right now, but it just started, we're in the Alsobrook stage. I was showing off to my one and only girlfriend about how I saw the exterior yard shots were shot in a studio, but I didn't realize how it related to that whole thread you started here a while ago, so that's very interesting. Hope it'll be on tv long enough to see how you handled it.

Hello, I just saw a Dutch tv series that was shot on super16 called Waltz. When I wasn't enjoying the more important things, like the very good drama and camerawork, I noticed the out-of-focus highlights were triangular most of the time. I was just wondering what you can say about the types of lenses that could have been used on this show. I know they use superspeeds a lot here, but I read they have a hexagonal iris, or do they? Nothing too important, just wondering. Thanks

Hey Adam, I just saw a new Ford Mondeo commercial which has obviously been influenced by the same movie, here it is in case you missed it: Best, Alex

How about diffusing during the scanning process? How does that differ from on the lens diffusion? Best, Alex

I forgot to mention that I also very much liked to see my favourite dp Wolfie from Living in Oblivion as a police inspector. WOLFIE!!! James 'Chad' LeGros was also in it, surprisingly.

Hey Jonathan, could you please explain why you thought it were bad greenscreen shots? Thanks! Saw it yesterday and thought it had some great performaces and a good pace. Loved the look and detailed art direction, didn't like the lack of blacks. I especially didn't like the shot on Robert Downey Jr. when Gyllenhaal goes to visit him on the boat (washed out, hard light). The way the murders were treated overall felt sincere, but the way that policeman at the scene of the first murder walked around like there was nothing going on, while two teenagers lie there bleeding all over seemed very strange. [little spoiler following] I also would have liked to see the woman and her child actually escape from the Zodiac's car. Best, Alex

I'm going to film school this year in the Netherlands (we only have one film school), because: a ) I got accepted, hooray! b ) it isn't that expensive, you pay the fixed price per year that you pay for every higher education (about 2000 dollars) c ) I get to learn from a lot of experienced people in a failsafe environment. d ) it will get me a good network of people by the time I graduate. e ) it's a relatively small school with very dedicated, and for all I know, very friendly people. f ) I want to have a degree, because I think it's a good thing to have and otherwise the government will turn my subsidy into a loan. For me there is no difference between 'going it alone' and taking a film education. There is just me and my goal, whatever gets me there the fastest is good.

Why does it have to be a "I'm not good enough, so I need to cut you down to make myself look better that's the story of internet communities in a nutshell, unfortunately. When i was in stupid discussions on the internet, i always remembered this saying: never argue with a fool, people might not see the difference. I gave up a long time ago!

I used a typical paper IKEA lantern, a little over 2 feet wide, with a 200W bulb and ofcourse a porcelain socket. I wouldn't advise anyone to put a higher wattage bulb in them though.

Thanks for the post. I have one small question about exposure. Does the fact that you rated the stock at 400ASA mean that the restaurant scenes were in fact 2/3 of a stop under, instead of one stop?

Great short! Here's one of my favourites in return: http://www.atomfilms.com/film/long_distance.jsp

i used exactly the same thing on a video yesterday. The redhead was on a dimmer and i made a small frame with different color gels to move in front of it.

are there moving lights on that rig to simulate streetlights? Looks nice.

Same here. It's a very intriguing shot, but what ingenious thing am i missing?

I saw the crossing guard jump a bit too, that's what gave it away as fake to me the first couple times i saw it. Amazing how much work there goes into something like this. Does the format they shot this on (digibeta?) make this kind of effects work harder to do? Apparently it's a commercial for winter tyres. Here's the full version, but i seriously doubt this will ever be aired here. http://www.kwik-fit.nl/content/downloads/K...ietPaulusma.wmv thanks again everybody!

great, thank you.

There was a fake video released of an accident involving a famous dutch weatherman, and i was wondering how they made it. I suppose there is some kind of cgi involved here, but i'm wondering what kind and how the process and shooting for this stuff works. And don't worry, it really is fake :) http://dump.geenstijl.nl/mediabase/8580/e0ff355b/index.html Thank you.

yes it is. U is 'you' in Dutch.

With all due respect, but to me you're not really making a point. You just say Crewdson is mediocre and Hopper is considered a great painter by many. Which is ok by me, but you don't convince anyone with bold statements alone, so what's the point of saying it then? I wasn't making the claim that artists have been influenced by film and vice versa, i was just saying that there's a distinct style in Hopper and Crewdson's work that makes it cinematic. You can also find this in the work of Hubbard and Birchler. Not at all in the photography of Bresson, but that's just my opinion. I very much like the subject matter of this thread, but it would be even more interesting if there was less bold statements and more nuance and explanation. But maybe that's what you get from being "on the internet right now".

Gursky? Huh?! I can see why you think he's a good photographer, but what is he doing in this thread? To me the similarities with Hopper are evident, since they both seem to be interested in showing a very specific moment in time. A regular or not so regular frame from a movie. I believe that we are so conditioned by the way movies unfold the narrative that, when watching these photos, there's some kind melancholic reaction. Both Hopper and Crewdson could never have made their work without the context of films. I don't care one bit about who was first or who is the better artist.

It's more conceptual than others books about lighting, in that it offers more a view on lighting than a summary of equipment and set ethics. That makes it different from other books i've read on the subject, so i'd surely recommend it.

I second every opinion stated here. It's a great read and very comprehensive.

that's confusing, because you don't correct the film, you correct the cooler light with a warmer gel. It works just the same ofcourse, but it sounds counterintuitive.

i have a pair of regular nikes that are pretty comfortable, but i also use a pair of timberland pro's with steel nose. Doesn't feel good after a day walking on concrete though, insoles or not.

I've searched the board for threads about how to set your lightmeter for working with the z1e. Many say it's between iso 130-180. I'm using the cineframe25 setting in 50i mode, shutterspeed is at 25. Now, if i set my sekonic l-558cine at 25fps and iso 400, i get f-stops that really approximate the autoexposure of the camera. How come? Is it the shutterspeed? I'm just pointing the camera at regular stuff in the room, so no greycard or controlled lighting. It's overcast here today, so no big changes in sunlight. Gain is at 0db.