Fredrik Backar FSF

Serious ... Maybe so. But I am at least open to dicussion. It all lays in the way you occupy a furnished room. Talk, don´t teach others. If you just rephrased yourself you wouldn´t be the object of sneering from ALL in here... I don´t hate you I just don´t care for the way you talk back. People that carry them selves that way around here are the ones to have soup in the long run. Don´t use my name if u can´t eve say yours btw.

terrence malllics "che" has been rumored to shoot 65..... Best is too what I strive for. Have said no to many a production that doesn´t care about quality....

True.... Most was cgi... But the sequences that were of a "natural" nature looked very poor. Remember one shot in front of a waterfall where the cgi background looked better than the live action in the foreground...:) Lucas truly has lost all sense of quality and respect for his other filmmaker fellows. With his money he can dictate the world of dp:ing he seems to think... Sad.... Profit or not with whatever equipment Ultra, quality fore oneself should be main objective. Tomeet one´s own vision in quality that is. Too bad lucas has a subdural hematoma in the quality region.... Loved the first films btw:)

But it doesn´t matter for whom it is "good enough". My whole point was that all work regardless of occupation or who you are aiming at, isn´t best if it is only good enough. Speaking in such terms renders the dp, or any other professional useless. Few are the producers that choose quality over profit. And as for the masses; they find vhs and digital broadcasting good enough. Most can´t tell difference between video and film...... Is that what we as dp´s should aim for and be good enough for???? Where´s the pride in that? Sorry man. I just don´t comply with your thinking.

Sorry man 82B!!!! Hope I didn´t confuse u to death..... :( The intention for my film was lower contrast and desaturated toward the cool end. Polarizer was shifted as we whent on, and there was only on axis movement with no spinning of the camera. Go without the polarizer I would say and try maybe a lesser balancing filter like the 81c, then at the end of the day you could add an 80a or b. My temperature dropped the most after three o´clock. It is however easy to grade afterwards to a point also. Especially if u are going straight to video. My film whent to print. But!! Bring more ND´s. With polarizer, the 82b and nd3 I was still working around f8 as I wanted more depth in the exteriours. I also recommend large silks for extreme sun shots.... Hope I am of some help to you. I am not extremely experienced, but this is what I would do. Ps. I used no hazefilter.Ds I am sure Mr Mullins has some great input. After all he shot North fork :)

Yes it´s all very sad..... btw. Windman! Would u agree with me on episode 2 beeing the worst looking film ever? :) Saw it in the odeon leiscester square london digitally projected and also as a print later. Christ man!! :)

Truly sorry Ultra.... Even my leighman girlfriend wondered why "once upon a time.." looked so bad. Worse cinematography is hard to gather-up I say. And why oh why, if you really care about the quality of images you yourself produce, would you even go near the statement "good enough"??? For a harsh language approach: Screw that! That clearly tells the whole story of you; all knowing of technicalities and dumbfounded as it comes to achieving art that makes yourself feel fulfilled. You cannot fulfill the nature of a script and your own visions with a good enough approach. Any director with common sence would throw you off the set if the "good enough" phrase was uttered in conjunction with his work. Having used both film, cinealta, dvcam and imx; with or without PS35. Nothing has this far ever even come mentionably close to film. Why is good enough your best?? Why not the best?? You have nothing to strive for then as I see it. Why?????????????

Anyone seen schlock???? I have never laughed so hard at anything, but it sure doesn´t look good :D

Shot film using 250D in the french alps. Shot with an 81 to go towards half blue. Looked really nice and desaturated. Also had polarizer in to kill highlights. Left me with a desaturated and soft picture.Rated normally with a stack of ND´s in :D

not true. A CRT scanner such as the millennium is using it for scanning for instanse. A cathode ray is shot through the emulsion instead of diff.light and is read by anode device measuring the power left. Very analogue :)

:D :D :D :D :D Amazing!!!!! This is true humor :) I usually try to ignore the colorist if he goes on too much. Once he´s not getting any attention the message hopefully goes through. A number of times I´ve had to just say "no way in hell" right out. It´s your work and should be respected. However not saying that I don´t listen to suggestions. :)

One also comes to think in terms of resolution.... It must be quite high I suppose? I do however have some faint memory that there aren`t that many receptors in all... Another thing. Is the eye sensitive to "invisible light" too. Ultra violet and so on. But the brain only processes the "visible" range???

True as you say about scanning. If you want it to "look" ccd then its ok of course. AND. The DI is a great thing for a dp, but I´m still waiting for it to develop into something better then right now, so I´m not looking to turn the other cheek forever hopefully :D Cheers

That is flabbergasting to me.... not a work of art? Being Swedish and keeping up with all the lingo quirks that don´t come through in the subtiteling; this is a masterpiece at its best.... :) And worst of all!!! Mentioned by the side of true bullshit like black hawk down!!?? Sorry `bout language but that angers me a tad!!

I second this question as I haven´t been able to find anything on the net...... :)

David! I admire and respect your work and your oppinions fully! However,,,,( :) ) I must second Audiris on this point. I wouldn´t even call it the skintones being bad, but more so a look of two dimensionality in any surface represented, then, especially skintones. Yes one must accept that any given look may or may not be a choice, but why then are all choices made the same way. "Mr grader... give me bad skin otnes and twodimensionality please!!".... Pushing it too far and adding too much grain reduction is all another thing. That is just a discussion of digital artifacts that any uninvolved can see.....

Sorry for making it into a dicussion of the D.I:s be or not be. The intention was aimed reallat the video capture process mostly; a none film based original that is. I was always as a kid wondering about the fact that film on television can look good as opposed to video on television. Something I understand now. Sorry to say though. That at the present moment I find there is a lack of something in there; something the future will hopefully change. But the lack is of an origin unspecifiable by, at leats, me. I am a believer in the fact that the difference is in the fact that a digital step is always just a representation of true light and colour. Where as film is something generating pictures in an "organical way" through photones of the original light exciting electrons and making a "natural "imprint with all that is there in..... Photograf a painting and you will never achieve its natural beauty, strokes etc.... I love this dicussion so go on my friens :)

No matter the resolution of the digital media, I am still inclined to say that there is a "filtering" effect on the original negative. be it 2K or whatever. The quality of film has for some irritating reason in discussion been subdued to the level of mere resolution and color depth. Have we forgotten the fact that film is not a tool to represent reality to the ut`most degree, but rather(at least for me), a beautifying and poetic enhancer of the world which we look to depict. So far I have no visual proof of video being able to do this. And a heightened resolution for video in the future can only make it show the world in an even more accurate way, hence we would be looking at homevideo feeling material for the rest of our working careers. Film is like the paint with which you form your piece of art. Brush stroke upon brush stroke ever changing. Video will always remain a cold digital representation of reality with facial poors and lack of organic feel of grain. Somewhat like listening to the differences of LP and CD on any given system. Audiophile as I am I am yet to hear a digital soundrecording that matches that of an analogue. To quote a music critic I saw on television last week. " the world seems to veere toward loosing touch with true quality, we have begun to stop at good enough too often in our lives". Just had to get it out of my system. Agitated but happy I am. And have full respect for those who like the digital branch´. :D :D

Learned something here today then. Always thought it was that the focaldepth was less overall... Thank you then :D

Rate the 18 at 500 and push one from there. tried it and it works very well.

Can u get Anamorphs sharp? Most definitely! Made print of film shot on Hawks the other day and it was as sharp as u get. The lenses differ in size but but are on the whole somewhat bigger. Pana primos.... Keeping the F-stop high is inthe fact that the depth of focus is inheretly shorter in anas. Plus, it lessens the possible focus loss in its peripheral ares. The anamorphic element may or may not be placed as the front element the of the lens. Internal ana-element does give less distortion when using a wider lens. On the hawks for instanse, The 40mm prime with front ana made reality look like a barrel on the sides, whilst the zoom starting at 46mm and internal ana looked very nice and straight. One could also add that, for instanse, a 50mm lens is more of a portrait lens then a regular 100mm would be as the aspectratio 2.35:1 of course differs from the usual 1.33 framing Take care! :D

OOPS! Misty field u say..... Didn´t see that. Try edge from ground or so then :)

The one time I rated it at 250 I had no probs with highlights.. that stock holds up to no end=) Depends on your scanner also. colour depth and so on. An ursa gold wouldn´t maybe do as good a job as the millennium. One step wouldn´t hurt u. Promise :)

The zebra is a useful thing. as long as there is no contrast variation one can play a bit with the f-stop. but as David=) I stay around 2.8 also. Bottomline! As a DP I would never act in that manner! The end result should be a show of colaboration in every frame. My gaffer is the most important guy on set along first ac and the dirctor. The state of the team also shows on screen. Tak care ya´ll :D