Jump to content

Keith Mottram

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

    826
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Keith Mottram

  • Rank

  • Birthday 01/06/1975

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  1. Used it a number of times, if you want decent 3D it works well as long as you are not planning on too many close ups as it cannot be closer than a couple of meters in and zooming in does diminish the 3D effect in my opinion. Also noise can be a problem in low light. Never had a problem with vertical alignment appar from some initial beta units. You will always end up doing some horizontal adjustment in post no matter what cam you use. Ghosting can be wrong glasses with monitor, but most likely you haven't set your camera up right...
  2. DO NOT do a pull, unless you can repeat it perfectly - I computer controlled, as you will have to match the pull on the plates. As it is a gs shoot you will be able to simply adjust the convergence in post, so set your convergence for the end of the move. If you were doing this in the wild you could have real problems with a move of this size depending on your background information.
  3. yes and no real advantage to shooting straight to pro res...
  4. Not sure what you mean by 'up till now' as there are hundreds of 3d blurays available in the UK! I do find it bizaar how many articles and how much newsprint is spent on the death of 3d or the end of 3d or why 3d sucks etc. If you don't like 3D dont watch it and economics will take it's natural course. The rest is just a load of balls really. Watch Herzog's new doc and then think again about 3d it really improves the experience. poop films are poop films whether they are 3d or not. Right better get back to editing this 3D concert...
  5. Straight forward log and transfer. what version of fcp are you using and did you clone the cards properly onto your external hd?
  6. With a nano flash and pl mount this could be quite an exiting camera for the price... Stupid that there is no sdi out, but 422 as opposed to 4:2:0 of the panny is welcome...
  7. Thanks Rob, that's really useful, I'll be sure to give them a call next time I shoot 16mm... hopefully they'll still do 16mm! Ps you bigness website doesn't work.
  8. Rob, I know people who still buy music on plastic discs that need a piece of metal to make them play! Seriously though the amount of commercial productions shot on 16mm is a tiny share of the market. Hell at the moment very few commercials in the UK are even shot on 35mm. So unless i-lab has invented a new definition of the word niche I don't see much point in ringing them!
  9. okay I'll bite... I never said I was Deluxe, though I happen to think I am a pretty de luxe kind of guy... Anyway their statement may or may not support my view, though I believe it to be correct and I have yet to meet any working professional in London who would disagree. Deluxe or they're PR department have no need to go into the ins and outs of their decision as it is pretty friggin obvious. Are you honestly saying you believe that 16mm printing is economically viable?
  10. Just saw the fighter, and the making of the film, They said that Wahlberg pushed to have it filmed with the HBO boxing crew cause it would take 3 days to film rather than 20 plus, or whatever figure they gave, I can only assume that the old beta cams have an output of 1920x1080, unless I am wrong please correct me. 2K projection is roughly 2000k by 1400k, if the old betas were actually 1920, how did that boxing footage blend in? I can't imagine stretching the footage vertically. NTSC beta is 720x486 pixels. they would have uprezzed it in the DI/ Post. Blimey!
  11. The thing is if I was Deluxe and I had the choice I'd scrap it, I am making an educated guess, but I cannot see how it is economically possible to carry on- they are not a charity so to go on about corporate policies is a bit daft. Even if you feel there is a market for it, you must realise that to maintain this service is probably cost prohibitive (even if it makes small change money on a job by job basis) let alone the sky high rents that they pay for the prime soho location. I am not trying to discredit your artistic choice, in fact i fully respect it, but you are working in a very small pond with 16mm printing - I'd go as far as to say that 16mm aquisition is now very niche in london even after its recent mini revival. and if you are totally against digital projection you can print your 16mm onto 35mm. I am sympathetic to your anger at losing a respected lab, but there are far more important fights both inside and outside the british film industry and this is why I cannot find it in myself to give a damn. it's sad sure but in the grand scheme of things...
  12. sorry, but how many people here have ever printed 16mm? and of those who raised there hands how many in the last ten years? they are not stopping processing or printing 16mm dis to 35mm. they are merely not printing onto 16mm for the dozen or so 'artists' who 'need' prints for there installations. this is a load of bollocks. sorry to be harsh but it is. and it is not to do with corporate greed, it's to do with common sense.
  13. I'm amazed that anyone would shoot rec709 for a feature. to convert log into simple viewable dailies takes no time at all- even on my laptop it is a breeze. It doesn't need to be handled by the crew an assistant editor can bash them out and provide everyone who needs them with 'corrected' qts. Personally I have never cut with the 4444 anyway it always gets downconverted to regular 422 for editing and baking a look at the same time as conversion barely dents the export time.
×
×
  • Create New...