Sergi Vilanova

Yes, well, I must admit that I really haven't thought about that one. Thing is, wouldn't that be TOO much grain? On the other hand, if I think about it, what I don't really like of th 7218 is that is too flat for its grain (and I LOVE the 5218) if I push it it'll get contrastier... mmmh... intresting It's too bad production can't afford any tests... thanks again sergi

Hi, Wow! I shot that stuff may be seven years ago, when I was a student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic, at the Bugis market. So I don't really know where that is now, but I my self would love to watch it again it didn't really looked like old footage, but more like a "seventies documentary" or something like that. sergi

Well, thanks everyone ore those useful advices. Thing is, my director does want some grain, or at least he says he is comfortable with it. This is a really low budget shoot and I'll have almost no lighting. So I guess my point is not so much in terms of grain or no grain, because I know there will be some, but which way through it you think it would look more iteresting: 1- 500T, slightly grainy but flatter 2- 200T pushed 1 stop with may be more grain but snappier and more contrasty. So the real question I guess is: between these two options, how much grainer the 200T pushed one stop is opposite to the 500T. Thanks again sergi

Hello everyone. Some years ago, I pushed the 7274 (200T) by 2 stops, up to 800, to shoot in a street market at night in Singapore. I liked the results a lot. It was VERY grainy and contrasty, but it suited the film very well. Now; I haven't pushed in 16mm. ever since (mainly because I didn't needed it) but for an uncoming job I am considering to do it; but only by one stop. Mainly because I'll be in a very low light situation with almost no film lights and also because I think that some higher contrast and slight grain might be good for the job. I don't want to use 500 ASA because in 16mm. I don't really like its grain/low contrast ratio, but I was wondering how the new 200T or 250D stock might look pushed one stop. Too much grain? If anyone has any experience on it, I'd really apretiate any opinions about it. Thanks a lot sergi

You are ABSOLUTAELY right Cristophe!!! I ment 2 THIRDS of a stop. By that, correcting down that slight extra information, you help building up contrast and have richer blacks, which is basiclly what you have in the reference picture. Sorry about the mistake sergi

Hello Jean- François. In my opinion, it shouldn't be difficult for you to achieve that look. It is quite simple and it is not at all a matter of DI or any special laboratory process. it's just a matter of exposing, may be add a Polarizer filter (there is not much to polarize in that picture but it will help for sure) and do a proper telecine which, in a more complex and detailed way is not much different than a photoshop work (in terms of concept). The only thing is that you should really get an overcast day when you shoot it. THAT's, to me, what you really need to achieve this particular look. What I would do is: I'd put Fuji 250D in camera (Fuji has, to me a slightly greensih- cyan byass that would suit your purposes) but then I'd over expose the negative by to stops so you have those rich blacks and also to tighten the grain (which in Fuji is more noticeable, specially in 16mm.). The rest is a matter of telecine (desaturate, darken a bit, add some contrast, etc.)

Hello everyone: Well I thik we can all agree about the beauty of B&W films, but I must also agree with Mr. Mullen when he says he is abit puzzled about everyone attacking films realsed in B&W but shot with color neg. (and yes, when I read the AC magazine, I also thaught about everyone talking on how the begining of Casino Royale should'nt been shot with color neg). I guess my point is, yes I do LOVE B&W and specially B&W neg, but if these great filmakers (directors and DoPs) do all their tests and end up choosing the color negative, there is GOT to be a reason for that. My experience:my only 35mm short film shot in B&W (Double X, I think it was) ended up released with a color print (which I couldn't control) and the whole think ended looking blueish (but REALLY blueish) and I freaked out because it was supposed to mimmick old B series Ed Wood-like films. Funny enough, a good bunch of people came later to me to say how they liked it and asking how did I achieve that particular blueish tone... ;-) And, for a commercial in B&W I shot recently, I stated that it HAD to be shot wth B&W neg, but later on prep the postproduction guys told us they needed a color neg to work with, and we basicly had no choice. And truh is it ended up looking quite good.Except that may be, fr my taste, was too flat and too bright, but that had to do with the telecine, which I was not able to attend. and, about great B&W films, one of the last ones which I remember its print left me breathless in a theater was "Dead Man" shot by Jim Jarmush and Robby Müller (btw, one of he greats, in my opinion). I am almost convinced that it was shot in B&W neg, but I am not sure. Any clues? s.

Hi everyone. I am from Barcelona and I went there for the first time in 2001, I think. unfortunatelly, I've only been able to make it once more, in 2004. But I will for sure go back there every year I can. Great films, great screenings, great friendly environement, great food and, not to forget the Pub lodz Kaliska and the dance floor at hotel Centrum. You can talk one to one to all the best DoPs in the world as well as to fellow cinematographers or film students (which is NOT less important). Aside the fact that Lodz is one of the most unique cities I've ever seen... It's easy to get there. I think there are regular flights from London to lodz and, if not, to Warsaw from any major city in Erope. From Warsaw you can easily make it to Lodz by bus or train (around 3hours, I think). Hope to get back there next year. sergi

Hello everybody. I am right now preparing a new job (a commercial) in which, (due to budget issues) I'll have to shoot in HD. My first option is to shoot with a SONY HDW F900R camera with ZEISS DIGIPRIMES lenses. I have nevr shot HD before, and I have two main questions about it: 1: I don't know which is the conversion factor for such lenses to standard 35mm. lenses. 2: Wich is the given ASA to that particular camera, if any? Can anybody please help my on that? thanks a lot in advance

Thanks a lot, I hadn't considered that way and it sure is something to think about. Very helpful. sergi.

Hello everyone I've been ot of the forum for a while shooting a job. I did shoot it with Zeiss Ultra primes leses (one of my favourites) For a new incoming job I am considering to use the Cooke S4. I have never used them before, but my feeling, for stuff I've seen shot with them, is that they might be slightly softer in detail (meaning less crispy); but i might be wrong. I would deeply apretiate any info or ideas or thoughts from anyone who has used them both extensively and has an opinion about it. I know it has more to do with personal taste than anything else, but I still would really like to hear from other people's experience. thanks a lot Sergi.

Hello everybody: I don't know if this has been discussed before; if so, excuse me, but I haven't found it already. Does anybody know which are the most evident and (more important) the most practical (in terms of use - results) diferences between the Standard Pola, the UltraPola and the True Pola? I've used before the pola and the true pola, and the only reason I found to choose one or another was what I felt was right at that moment in that particular job. But I wouldn't be able to explain why. So, if anyone has incomes on that regard, i wold apretiate them a lot. thank you s.

Hi Sander: 1: In theory, white balance is only a color correction device, so both pro-mist and pola shouldn't affect at it. Nevertheless, since both of them (specially the pola) do affect the way light hits your lens, and also as a general rule or working method, I would do it with my lens clean. 2: There is no particular order in which flters are placed, although the general rule is that you place first (that is, closer to the lens) the one you will use the most through out your shooting. 3: Again, it's a matter of theories and taste. Here in this forum is been discussed before, and I think it was Mr. Mullen who posted the two main theories about it. One, that yes, it depends on the percentage that the foreground occupies your frame (that is, a close up of someone's face even done with a wide lens). Two, that it depends on the lenses you use: The tighter the lens the most you notice the filter's effect. In my experience, that last one is the one that comes closer to the truth. Good thing is that, since yo are filming in video, you DO get what you see on the monitor, so just check and try what you like the most. Hope it was of some help s.

Hi! I am DoP from Barcelona, Spain and this is my first post / reply in this forum. So I don't really know how it works yet, so excuse me if I do something wrong. About your question, my experience tells me that no metering is really the best way. In my first shots like the ones you mention, I used to try to meter and all I achieved was headaches because I knew I couldn't rely on my readings, so I just stoped doing it. Also, in general, I avoid reading bright ligts, like streetlamps, windows or even practicals, because my feeling is that, unless you are REALLY experienced, it can do more harm than good. Whenever I gelled up some street lamp or something like that (dimming down practicals, etc) with NDs I did it by the eye; and usually worked just fine. Also, for that matter, to me, the new fast stocks (specially kodak 5218) are a blessing, because they handle everything with such a great latitude. Hope everyone's feedback is of some help. If not, I'm just hapy to have joined the cinematography.com forum. sergi