Fredrik Backar FSF

Kudos to a master for being able to! Hej Adam! Hur gick videon? :-)

HMI difference to Tungsten or incandescents could be explained by comparing it to equalizer filtering of sound. There is a thing called Q-value describing the accuracy of a frequency filter. The better the Q-value; the less frequenzies outside of what is wanted also come in. The HMI´s could be said to have a better Q-value meaning that they allow almost only for the one specific temperature/frequency needed. Tungsten and carbon archs on the other hand let in a much bigger array of frequencies but with a very high bias for the temperature wanted hence giving them a greater resemblance to "natural" light. I also find HMI´s not to be very flattering on skin or in general, I try to use large T sources as much as I can (budgets.....) such as wendys and T24s and so on. Even on exteriors but gelled instead. All best :-)

Hi all! Used the Phantom HD to great success on an IKEA commercial (see http://www.ikea.com/ms/sv_SE/kampanj/fy08/...gnasovrum.html) mixed with 35mm as opening films. Used large tungstens on this job in excess of some 500kw in total as flicker becomes a factor when going down lower than say a 5kw at 2000fps. Now the question: Who has experience around these filmspeeds with HMI Units? The phantom delivers full 2k resolution at 1000fps, so I guess that´s where I´ll be Playing. Anything too low in HMI-terms? Or; are all units safe at "flicker free" as the cycles/second are so high?? Many thanks/Fredrik

I sincerely hope - as I my self have no hard facts - that this is something that will not be the decision of the screen size at the end of the line imaging. Aspect i s the choice of director and DP in coherrence with what the script needs and not the screen in you local cinema... Frightening thought if things move in the direction you speake of... Fred

I second that! Skintones are aweful on the vid pics.

Don´t thinkthere is something that small and light around really. Remember reading the article for "ALI" in the american cinematographer where they had combined two lipstick pal cameras to accommodate the 2,35:1 they were shooting. Don´t know all facts though. Do a Google :-)

You would of course be shooting in 4:3 with you HD cam hence the still apparent lack of resolution I was reffering to. Did filmout tests for a feature together with with another DP (Eric Maddison) that compared The new Canon digiprimes, Zeiss HS on Pro-35 and regular 500asa s-16mm with Zeiss HS. Of course I liked the film the most with graintextures and great tonalrange/skintones, but when comparing filmoutmaterial with and without pro-35 from the HD-cam. Pro-35mm footage was superior as it rendered a heightened feeling of film; much better highlights, nicer tones going into black and a more textured feel thanx to the moving ground-glass in the adapter. The digiprime Filmout just felt cold 2-dimensional and lacking all terms naighing textured. Sharp?: Yes! But good?: NO! Film is not all about sharp is it. Video is right now fighting to heighten resolution, hence the feel of reality. And who wants to see films that look like what u see every day? Film should (I think, if nothing else intended) thwart you from reality and paint a place of "somewhere else". Sorry for going into this film/video debate again..... I´ll stop it right now :D

Did pulling test at http://www.stopost.se and the outcome was very nice on both the 5217 and the 5205. It came out with earthy textured skin and beautiful warmth.

Brown is very hard to grade I have found, so mabe try some filtration- chocolate or so. But! I´ve done test recently that showed that a 2stop pulling of the film gives wounderful earthy tones automatically. In video; filtering and desaturation would be ok I guess.

Now hey! Here´s an idea. Did tests with HD and a Pro-35 adaptor with anamorphic on. looked nice.but u still lose the resolution in essence.

Just guessing what you want now...(chris milks Keyne west shots,,,,) and assuming maybe an IMX-camera. A simple thing like turning off all gamma dials and sharpening tools and white clips will get you far. White balance through 1/4 ctb and then desaturate in post. It´ll bring you towards china syndrome look - if that is where you are going. As david said something soft on the lens might heighten that 70´s look (whatever that is now,,,,) Last but not least! DONOTOVEREXPOSE!!

I have yet to see a generator truck earthed in the ground here in sweden..... although to me it make ssense that one would earth it. I do however know, that somwhere along the line in time there was a change of cablepositions in the threephase plugs for some reason. Could this be the case in US too? I´ve heard that it has made some ground-trouble here.

pixels per area will still be the same yes. What I think Audiris is saying is, that the less u use of a chip which to start with has bad resolution for a cinema screen, the less good every object on the chip will turn out as it will be composed smaller naturally to accomodate the framing in 2.40... And; a projected image of 2.4:1 should always have same height if good cinema. Otherwise the cinema would just be showing the widescreen within the initial 4:3 screen with black top´n´bottom and that´s no fun for us bigscreen lovers.

Oh. how could I forget: Snow falling on cedars!!! There is no excuse as to why that film did not get the Oscar! The sequences with the boat in the beginning! My god!! like ink....

One shot that sticks to my mind from seeing a perfect print in the cinema, is that of Holly Hunter as she takes a final look at her piano on the beach as the tean leaves for home. The camera slowly circles her from upfront on some 250mm or so in a Cu of her face. The background looks like a rembrandt turned Matisse and it seems as only it is moving and not her face. This together with the beautiful Michael Nyman score made me crack in the cinema (eyes not dry that is), Pure beauty in context. Shot from The insider as Russel Crow is looking at the old nails in the walls where pictuires used to hang. Most of The thin red line....... Bergmans Cries and wispers doesn´t have a bad frame in it....... By the way; doe anybody know who shot this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBFlNBsvyxI...h=leann%20rimes

Seems unnecessary to debate as all would still know the meaning I guess. On the yuotube page I think the video looks as if having been shot with some type of video format and crushed to pieces in a computer. Very good video though. Like this one better : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp8seG_dP9o...b%20for%20cutie

God im sorry... talking about shoes there for a bit :rolleyes: (I put my shoes into my work....!!) But yes, there are many kinds of good. I love Italian Horror for one, and where´s the true deep art in a film like House by the cemetery? :D

I´m appaled by this notion. If it were soley for business purposes Í wouldn´t be in this business as there wouldn´t be anything important to tell. All films would be produced to fit the american people ánd that sure doesn´t make me quiver with anticipation. When I make films I put my sole into it, and no one can tell me that we have to change the script for grossing purposes, let alone 90%!! commercials earns me a living and their sole intention is to sell, nothing wrong with that. I´m babbling on now.......

Trivia: The Norwegian queen and many others got retinal burns during a television show due to a broken lens on a fres. C ya:-)

I agree completely! One day interior setup on location can change 8 times in 8 hours to keep it right and that´s the magic of it all is it not? To shape and properly form your images no matter the circumstances certainly plays with your head all the time. Adding to this, that I stay away from DI as much as possible, the neg must present perfect right away and not merely rely on the trickeries of a digi-colorist. As a photography teacher told me when I asked him how it felt to be an accomplished cinematographer: "cinematographer" he said, "you never become a cinematographer, it´s just something you strive for your whole life, you never finish".

So true! thinking of it have done this so far with all my shortfilms and it looks better on the screen. I was though also thinking of actual cinema prints. Saw for instance an old print of the fog in london when i lived there. Fantastic look. Allt bra annars? :)

i will venture on and post the slightest progress on the matter :) Thanks for suggestions!!! Fred.

It´s looking to become a new "didtheuswalkonthemoon" -conspiracy :)

I have to praise the early Dean Cundey work with John Carpenter, hard sources and natural light in a beautiful blend. And I would like to add another depth to the hard light approach... It feels to me like the filmstocks back in the day gave more texture and feel to even the most harsh lighting setups. Just finished seeing an old horror B-classic "the Boogeyman" by Ulli Lommel. It is certainly not well lit in any way, super hard sources all over...., but there´s still this feeling of painterlyness(call me weird!) in the shots. Nowadays the new filmstocks from kodak and fuji have ventured so far towards the analytical pasted feel that it somehow allways feels flat and "too reel". Take the way the HD developing is going for instance; it´s working so hard to be as realistic as possible and in the midsts forgetting that film shold be an un-real experiense in most cases. So, could it be that hard light was "easier" to use before?? By the way, was not Ingmar Bergman and Nykvist sparkers of a new era of softlight when thay started using cellofane paper infront of their lights?

This is a very good idea for locked situations! I will for sure try it out. I tend to hate exterior lighting with hmi´s....(love geled tungsten when I can afford it!!) Still pondering those very wide ones though. Yes finding the right angles towards a proper sky och letting the background intersect for some break-up ´kind of works, but I always find my self cringeing at textureloss in cut outs to wider shots.... Maybe it´s impossible? Even a masterpiece like "thin red line" has this "problem" (Mind u I adore John Toll!!) Would the vari-con work well in a situation like this maybe? Mr MULLEN; any thoughts?? :)