Fredrik Backar FSF

Jeffrey Kimball, ASC used them up until a couple of years ago. Maybe he still does?

Kudos to a master for being able to!

Hej Adam! Hur gick videon? :-)

Sharper shadow pattern, more consistent color temp.

 

Talk to projectionists who rhapsodize about the days of carbon arc print projection, before xenon bulbs took over. There's something more accurate about the color of a carbon arc. It's also slightly warmer than most HMI's and Xenons.

 

Unlike the big globe of an 18K HMI or a 20K tungsten, a carbon arc flame was more of a point source.

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.

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

Puting the time period aside...what are the main steps in creating such a brown hue for shows like '24' and 'Numbers' and the movie 'The Arrival'?

 

This isn't what I was looking for but I am curious...is it mainly in the timing or is it filters?

 

Thanks

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

hehehe...I completely agree (even though I'm an american) but I would be careful with my spelling of soul - as in the essence of your being and sole - the lone thing, or the bottom of your shoe. ;-)

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 glad the movie made the money it did. Its called the movie business. Who wants to be part of a movie thats a flop and doesn't even make it to video. I'm on film maketing panels and I always tell filmmakers that 10% of movie making is art and the other 90% is business. Oh...and Altman's movie will make its money back easily.

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:-)

Yes, you also are always thinking of what lens to use, where to put the camera, how to move it, how to expose, etc. and you refine those skills over a lifetime as well, so don't get me wrong -- but the sheer range of lighting situations you will encounter, the problems you will have to solve, far outweigh your lens choices or film stock choices, for example. You could simplify your life by using just one film stock, 500T let's say, and sticking to three or four prime lenses, but it's a lot harder to stick to one lighting technique to cover all situations, hence why you end up expending so much mental effort on lighting. It's one area with a LOT of variables to deal with, every day on a shoot.

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".

That's also because then they transfered low con prints to video, rather than the neg. Think that has a lot to do with the look.

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 recently revisited The Last Emperor and as you said David, the DVD left something to be desired. But much more chocking to me was the fact that I didn't find it as beautifully lit as I used to. And I think that has got something to do with the fact that it's lit much harder than I remember it. Make no mistake - the film is still gorgeous - but I just remember it as that soft, strong primary colored epic when in fact it's rather a mixture of all sources and colours.

 

I might add that when I revisit other same-era films like 9,5 Weeks and such, I think they look even more modern today (Biziou's work is always rock solid), so maybe I'm stuck in the past or I'm just not a huge fan of hard lights.

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?

besides 12ks or 18ks, you can also try using nets behind your talent. i've got that setup working from time to time on a 12x or something large. for a tight enough mcu on long lens, you could put a 4x4 of ND behind the subject. but these are very locked off solutions, not a lot of room for blocking the talent or camera movement.

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?? :)