John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen

6 hours ago, Darmon Moore said:

This is great John. Thanks for the write-up! Did you apply film grain over the top in post or are all those images the native digital noise from 2500 ASA? Regardless, looks lovely mate.

Cheers,

Darmon.
www.dcdarmon.com

No added grain, that’s just the sensor noise (which is quite lovely on the ARRI)

I wrote a little bit about the process of pushing the ARRI Alexa to 2500 ASA for “Made in Oslo” which is competing for the Golden Nymph at the Monte-Carlo Television Festival next month. Thought some might find it interesting. 

http://johnerling.no/blog/2022/5/6/kg63lcplguxcirlpbxu5se2p0lffdm
 

On 10/7/2019 at 11:18 PM, Webster C said:

What were the stocks used?

Mostly Vision 3 500T (also for daylight), but the double exposures were expired Fuji Eterna 250D

On 10/4/2019 at 8:27 PM, Webster C said:

Very nice! Love the double exposures. Curious - your image looks wider than Super 16, but it also doesn't look cropped top and bottom. Plus the flares - what were the anamorphics that you shot with?

Hawk 1.3x anamorphics, makes scope out of S16mm (or 16:9 out of 4:3).

On 10/4/2019 at 8:27 PM, M Joel W said:

Looks great. Hawk 1.3 anamorphic?

Correct.

On 10/4/2019 at 6:04 PM, Nicholas Kovats said:

Well done! Beautiful haunting simple song paired with excellent visuals. The short subtle double-exposures worked well. Does the vimeo link represent the final version? Or is additional post planned to remove the occasional film based artifacts, e.g. dustballs, startup flash frame re: motor ramp up, etc? 

Thanks! Film based artifacts were intentional, it's the final version ?

On 10/4/2019 at 3:11 PM, Patrick O'Malley said:

Congratulations on the finished film, John.

You've achieved a really nice look with it and I think the double-exposures are successful and really help the overall feel.

 

How did you meter your shots with the double exposures in mind?

 

thanks

Patrick

Thanks! As a starting point I underexposed a stop, setting the ISO to half the amount. But I of course made some individual judgement for each frame, depending on what I wanted to see. For example the shadow side of their faces I wanted to be see through, to fill them with the next exposure, so I made sure they were well under, exposing for the details outside the window instead.

Thanks, that’s a good idea!

For anyone interested, this is the final video with the effect: https://vimeo.com/364123783

Just to follow up. We did this effect using the 416. But discovered that we could not simply shoot out the roll and reload it, because it would then be upside down with the sprockets on the wrong side. So we had to shoot out the roll and then manually roll it back into the feed compartment inside a loading tent. It was time consuming ? We could not access another camera that could actually rewind, but I would recommend that to do this efficiently.

I’m intending to do some double exposures on 16mm film with an Arri 416 camera. The most rudimentary method I could think of is just expose the entire roll (one stop underexposed, or however I feel is appropriate for the subject), make notes of the contents, and then reload the same film to shoot the second layer. But sometimes it would be really convenient to be able to just «rewind» the film right away to do the second layer. As far as I can see from the manual, there is no such function in the camera. I guess you could open the mag and do it manually, but it sounds cumbersome. Anyone done this and know a good method that I haven’t though of?

I just graduated from The Norwegian Film School, with this video as one of my graduation projects. Any comments are much appreciated. I could say a lot about the project and the circumstances, but it's always more fun to just let people experience it, and then hear what they're left with.

http://vimeo.com/elling/66725

Enjoy.

---

John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen

Cinematographer

Oslo, Norway

http://johnerling.no

I think you've got to remember they have never made a camera before.

 

This is them dipping their toe in the water with a product and a market they haven't dealt with before. They might have turned up to NAB and had everyone laugh at them. (and some are) They wanted to do a single model for the lowest cost and see how that goes. If you had to choose one mount for the dSLR market, (both thinking of sensor size) then EF mount makes complete sense.

 

Imagine if they'd only done m4/3 mount....all the EF crowd would be saying the same thing. EF mount has a very large installed user base...

 

BMD aren't really going for professionals like the ones that inhabit these forums.....they're going for a more mass market.

 

If the camera is a success, and it's safe to say it's made a big impact, then they will look to explore and expand. They had to place orders for millions of $ in components a few months ago before they even had a working camera. Risk mitigation meant they wanted to keep it simple, and appeal to what they thought would be their largest market.

 

They see this camera as a replacement / alternative to a 5Dmk2.(and 3). hat means EF mount.

 

They haven't been stupid. They know their are other options out there and they'll look at that now that see that they can do a camera and sell them in the numbers they need to.

 

jb

That makes sense. Although, as Phil points out, an m4/3 mount can easily be adapted to anything, including EF and PL :)

Guys, it' snot a 16mm sensor. It's not Super 35 either, but it's not 16mm.....

 

jb

I know it's not, but writing the actual dimensions takes longer, and it's close enough to be a valid concern. It's smaller than m4/3 and a bit larger than s16. It is pretty far away from 35. I don't mind the sensor size, I shot a lot with the SI-2k and loved it, and I love shooting 16, I just think they've made a serious mistake with mount options. They should at least supply a m4/3 mount, as those lenses would give a better range of focal lengths, even though I'd hate to use them for filming. Whether 16mm lenses would cover it, I don't know, but I've tested quite a few 16mm lenses on a m4/3 sensor, which is larger, and found that you can get pretty wide before you get vignetting. Either way, having a sensor that is marginally larger than 16, with mount options for 35mm lenses, is just not a good idea. No matter how cool the camera is otherwise.

Yeah, because why oh why is there no PL mount so we can use 16mm-lenses on it? 35mm EF-mount is completely bullocks on an as-good-as 16mm sensor... I mean, how often can you go out on a job and make do with only normal and long focal lengths? "Director: Hmm, can we go a bit wider on this one? DoP: Eeeh, the thing is..."

I'm not saying the camera won't have it's uses, and at that price it looks like an incredible piece of image capturing goodness, but geez, such a simple thing that would open up even more gates...

Having gone through this exact process with an experienced post house in Norway for a short aiming at international festivals, my understanding is that 24 is highly recommended. I assume you will create a DCP, as a lot of international festival are using local movie theaters, and international movie theaters are slowly but surely going digital. In Norway every cinema is digital, but we're a bit ahead of the bunch on this one.

When making a DCP you have to take into consideration that the DCI specification still does not support 25 fps. So even if you can create a DCP that is 25 fps, which will play on a lot of digital cinemas, there is also a lot of equipment deployed in worldwide cinemas that only support the DCI standard 24 fps (and 48). So you'd have to make a 24 fps DCP for those theaters. This means you're 25 fps film will play (marginally) slower in those cinemas, and your sound quality will be (marginally) worse because you'd have to stretch the waveform to get from 25 to 24.

If you shoot 24, you will also have to make 25 fps versions for broadcast and DVD, but theatrical projection would always be my first priority, and the people in the know says going from 24 to 25 is preferable to the other way around because your movie will play a bit faster (better too fast than too boring) and your sound waveform will be compressed instead of stretched (better quality sound).

Anyway, that was the recommendation from my post house and their reasoning. We decided to shoot 24, and have had no issues so far.

Resolution would be one difference.

Hi All,

 

I am looking for a second opinion on an upcoming short film that I am shooting.

 

In order to give the film a cool, blue cast right off the bat, I have chosen to shoot uncorrected Fujifilm Eterna 250T in daylight.

 

Having already undertaken a couple of tests already, I am satisfied with the effect this provides. We will of course undertake additional tweaking in the timing session with the Colour Timer on the project.

 

I am a little unsure as to whether it is a good idea to instruct my camera assistants to shoot a grayscale? I will be attending the flat grade transfer to HDCAM at the lab, and will be further finessing the timing in a separate session with our dedicated Colour Timer at a later date.

 

Therefore, is there anything to gain by shooting a grayscale, given that I do not wish the lab to make any changes to our image at the time of transfer?

 

Any feedback on this matter is greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks in advance,

 

Nick Eriksson

Well, the eminent mr. David Mullen already covered pretty much everything. I would just add that I personally always like to shoot a greyscale so that whatever happens, I know there is one fixed parameter that I can refer to. Even when sitting in on a transfer, my eyes can get biased and confused over time, even while taking all precautions. The time and effort required to shoot one, pretty much always makes it worthwhile in my book.

John-Erling Holmenes Fredriksen

Student Cinematographer

The Norwegian Film School

Hello, I have a question. I have been producing a Doc which was shot on the RED in eastern Europe. I may need to go back and shoot some pick-ups on the cheap with-out a full crew. I was considering using a 5D or 7D to do this. I have seen footage from both the DSLR's and the RED ofcourse, each with their own look. But I have never cut them together. For a documentary do you think the DSLR's would make an acceptable "b-cam" for pick-up shots?

I would be concerned about sharpness. HDSLR is very noticeably softer than RED, as the resolution is nowhere near that of RED, actually not even 1920x1080. I can easily see the difference in sharpness right away, even on my MacBook Pro screen. As for depth of field, they should not be too dissimilar. Of course, the RED will have a greater latitude, but you can probably work around that with careful exposure, and maybe tweaking some extra contrast into your RED-material, while not grading the 7D too much. Also, if you're doing handheld stuff, make sure you get a good handheld rig for the 7D, otherwise it will be very shaky and jelloish. You need weight and a good config to hold it the way you like, as well as an external monitor for those off angles where you'll have trouble watching the screen or using a viewfinder.

If resolution is not too critical for your project, then yes, I think you could make it work. As long as you expose very carefully. Do some tests maybe?

Another advantage tungsten units have over KinoFlo's that should be mentioned is color. Personally I much prefer the color you can get from from a tungsten unit over the color a tungsten KinoFlo-bulb produces. KinoFlo have lots of other advantages though. And you get a lot of light per watt.

Those are watts, yes, look here for different wattages: http://www.arri.de/lighting/europe_asia_au..._lampheads.html

I too find them a bit annoying at times. They have no effect when the viewfinder is not yet plugged in.

Hey all

I'm prepping for a short film, and there's a scene where I want to create a light that looks like it's bouncing off gold and into the character's faces.

I've been looking through my Lee filter swatch, and found a few I liked, but I thought I'd post here as well to hear if anyone has a personal favourite or recommendation to achieve this look.

The ones I liked in my swatchbook so far are:

- Lee 101 Yellow

- Lee 764 Sun Colour Straw

- Lee 765 Lee Yellow

The scene will take place in a barn, and we're using beams of daylight as a key motivation. This means that any tungsten light incorporated into the scene will feel quite warm. I'm also imagining the gold as a bit warm, with a clear yellow tint.

Any thoughts?

So, is anyone buying yet?

I just wish they didn't claim to be the first uncompressed RAW camera and that they have the fastest memory. Dalsa, Vision Research and several others have been shooting uncompressed RAW for several years and the Vision Research CineMag is removable flash memory with a data rate five times faster than A-Cam's cartridge.

I guess they've gotta say something, seeing as RED has said just about everything else ;)