ryan_bennett

Woah no one had a reply to this? Well first ya I guess you can go about using TVs as lights and it could be interesting, but wouldn't the scene be all blue or just one color? Also a lot of flicker when the scenes changes or whatever is on the TV. Not saying it's a bad idea but not sure if a bunch of tvs on full brightness will give you the amount of light you need to get a decent exposure of 500T (even though decent exposure that can be up for debate) so it just needs a little more thought. How do you push one stop? You right it on the film can and in the directions to the lab. They'll charge you more for it because it does mean some more work. Just curious Matthew have you shot on anything or have any of your work up because just curious if you're already making a demo reel and sound like you don't have too much experience. You don't have to listen to me but I can't deny just grabbing some b&w which is cheaper and just shooting on that and learning, then moving onto negative. You can get some 500w-650w worklights at a hardware store thats around $8-10. It would be worth it for if you need it in the future.

Nope, it'll be fine and in my opinion Fuji cuts pretty well with Kodak too which is another myth people have.

Okay now I fully read the thread, saw all the posts watched both videos. First, the stills naturally much better when watching in motion. Secondly, Alessandro if you think those frames are bad and the jaw too low, watch the other video that replaced this one. The other one didn't have the cinematic flair, the fantasy to it. It was just high contrast bodies, some standard camera shake when the singer really gets going, ya they clearly made the wrong mistake. Bigger is better in my opinion and you had a whole club/concert vs. a hotel room with them singing, it was very standard but they must be thinking about the band's image but why did they approve of it in the first off? You need to get back at them, somehow. I really enjoyed the whole look of the video, really would enjoy more of your cinematography/videography - whatever. Going back to Buick there, ya the "fuzziness" is called gain or bumping up the brightness/contrast in video causes it. Like said before, you light a room very bright but what matters is how you EXPOSE it for the look, so many people don't even realize that that I know. Look up some books and read about exposing and using a light meter you'll learn a lot and help you with your super 8 and your future.

I think they look fantastic and really beautifully lit. I would think you were crazy if you didn't have close intimate shots that the atmosphere suggests. I like CUs like this and have used a few for music videos, but I'm sure there's probably some others that will hate them and others that would love them, so I don't think there's any use of making fun of any one person, just wouldn't ever think about the jaw being too low though.

Ya they do, I shot a music video on fuji's 250D daylight spools, and have shot on 250T and few other stocks so I would definitely bet that they have 160 on daylight spools, single or double perf too, if you just called up and asked. Plus it is listed on their pricing site: FujiFilm I would love to shoot some scenes on my next short on 160 but I'm leaving that up to my DP.

Hmm... It was okay. Your work was fine but the short is really hard to watch, it's like a SNL skit that goes on way too long and doesn't have a nice flow to the story. I think this was a really hard script to pull as its got a lot of ideas, lots of different people and other effects, just lots and lots that aren't needed. You guys should've posted on a website or contacted SAG and got atleast a few older actors because they were pretty bad. Also why does most student films always have to have someone smoking pot?

hahah "what's my motivation?" "who cares just direct her it'll be alright". That's pretty cool though.

Um... ebay? I could use a few beta sp tapes, PM me.

This is the truth, stop down and it'll be fine.

I wouldn't worry - just go out and shoot and you'll see. So many students (hey even myself) just went out, shot plus-x/tri-x and got excellent results and didn't even think about the difficulty, it's just later on you realize with negative stock you can do a good deal of adjustment in the transfer, it's just if you're off on your exposure you're off and you can't really compensate for it but really who cares. I really do like the look of plus-x, just give it a try. Your second question well just call up Kodak and ask. You do know you can get b&w negative stocks, you don't have to go reversal.

One of my friends recently asked me to help him on something he was working, and he said this and I had to decline, I just couldn't take it but I still regret it, I wished I could've helped but the aggravation is not worth it. The other famous last words: - It doesn't really matter/I don't really care, we don't need any planning whatsoever. Then you're stuck for 2-3 hours debating over camera angles, blocking, etc. And the greatest: - I don't need any (storyboard/script/plan in any form), I got the vision in my head. Which is great but soon as you bring in other people who you're relying to shoot for you who see nothing like you see, well things turn into a problem. I know there's people who can pull it off but they are still capable of communicating in some form what they want to people and usually have more experience.

Ya, check this page out for more: Fuji

If you searched the forum you're going to find a million topics just like this. To answer your question a "normal" lens for 16mm would be a 25mm lens, half of 35's 50mm. For 8mm this would be a 12.5mm if you're wondering. There is no real normal lens it all goes for what you want.

Yes, I've used it and other members on the board here have also, there are a few different discussions about it, use the search function, a member is even kind enough to post examples of his work(mine will be up within the next week).

Ya that is a strange choice... I used 500D with interiors just because there were so many windows and fluorescents in the location i felt it would be easier to CTB the lights and get some Kino's then to buy CTO gels for the windows. I gotta get some stills from the two movies I've been working on up here.

Personally, I always found myself to get a better and pleasing image with film, video in general just doesn't look good to me. Now to the original post - well no matter what you're going ot shoot on if you just don't have it you just don't have it. Ya they paid a lot of money but as long as they learned something form the experience then you just gotta move on. I watched your film and you can read what I thought on that post. You just took one intro class, go out and shoot on free time, just relax and do whatever you what, just make sure you shoot shoot shoot! Also, experiment with color negative and if you can afford it, get a supervised transfer and you'll be amazed at so much that you can and can't do, you probably would've gotten what you wanted for the bleach bypass if you worked more with them in the transfer to get the look you want. You really got to talk to the lab and give them the notes especially if you are doing an unsupervised transfer. Really, film just has a lot of lattitude in comparison, you just barely got your feet wet! The great thing I think is everything is hybrid, you can shoot film get an awesome transfer and edit NLE, it's the best of both worlds and will only get better. Also, tri-x is black and white and really, is neither D or T, you don't use a filter since there's no color so you can mix lights. Thats the other thing I generally like about film, it makes you think what you're exposing and how you're exposing it. Generally, most people I know who are heavy video users, whenever they want a dark scene or "natural" lighting, they automatically think that means not using any lights and neglecting how you're actually exposing the image (over, under or spot on). That just really angers me, there's no real thought, but I've seen video shot using standard film techniques and I was impressed. I just think if you are into this business you need to learn both film and video.

My two cents, First I think it started out interesting, the toasting scene was good but the second he gets burned/electrocuted is when things get really wonky. You see him pull his hands out in the wide shot then cuts to a close up shot of him that gives you the feeling his hands are still in the toaster.I would've rather had continuity in there, just seems sloppy and not inventive editing. Why do I suggest this? Well the flashing of the light is motivated by the "shocks" and the way you have it you have him pull his hands out and lean against the wall, taking out this motivation for the close up of him with the shocks. Hated the shower scene. It looks and starts alright but it's too much. I think we can tell he's screwed and his hand hurts, we can see it but this goes over board with it and you have unneeded titles. You should've thought more how you can tell the story visually. The cemetary scene is interesting, feels more like a music video then he gets ran over. Not quite sure how that goes, made me laugh. I like the use of slow motion and almost feel like it has no real connection from the rest of the movie. Also, he's clearly sitting in the middle of the stones on grass then he's on the road. Why couldn't you guys shoot on more than one roll of film? That's a bit odd I mean you could always just gone out and bought more film on your own. Also 100 feet of 16mm is 2 minutes 46 seconds, unless you're compensating for the slow motion shots. You can always go back, shoot some more and re-edit.

I would listen to David's advice on rating 320 but we used 500D for a short and it looked fine, there was some softeness but it came from the lens as it was consistently soft focus on what we shot on 200T. I'm also more curious in how you made the lights though, can you shed some more information?

For me, It would be a "proper" adaptation of the Ian Fleming's Moonraker. Have you read that book, so much better, clever-er - why don't I just stop all this and say it flat out, it's completely different than the movie with Roger Moore and a real fun read. It would be that or adapt one of the Bond shorts that Fleming wrote. Also would like to sort through some Jules Verne and other tales.

Hahha, I was going to put both because I've heard them called both, maybe correct to blue was a joke to help memorize it's use. Personally, they're CTB or CTO to me. What about scrims? Personally I think a combination of what Jonathan, David and I said would pull it off, considering the resources that you have.

What about starting try exposing it a bit darker then just overexposing it a whole lot till it looks good because you're shooting video, right? I ask this because this confuses me: Why do you need an 85 filter? You white balance video cameras. Do you mean which gel do you need for the lights, in that case it would be either get daylight balanced lights or CTB (Correct to Blue)

Just curious, which super 8 cams are the ones that are sound sync (double system) or have a pulse? Definitely interesting in getting one.

I agree and thought the same thing when I read the original post. Your job as a director is to direct the actors, leave the camera and rest to the DP. Not saying leave them completely alone, just work together, maybe take a peek or watch the performances inside the frame, but really you gotta be there for the actors. If you're directing you gotta be thinking about the story (the scene and its beats) and gauging your actors performance.

There's story and character development and there's just plain bogging the story down. I have a feeling that all that Jungle Julia stuff was used to trick us into thinking something else... like I said I don't want to spoil it for people but this is what I meant about him taking it just way too seriously and hurt the spin on the end with Stuntman Bob in my opinion. The second group of girls that included Rosario Dawson had a take at the diner that lasted for what seemed forever, technically it was interesting but really, after awhile you wanted to see something happen. Which is great because thats exactly what he wanted but watching the whole thing at 3 hours and going to a 10:30pm show, after awhile you just can't take the constant talking, regardless of the quality. That's the amazing thing though, it was pretty good dialogue but it comes with a disadvantage. Dialogue isn't everything in the movie, here it actually makes it feel like it was two movies, not one.

Grindhouse was great - up to a point. First trailer, oh god loved it. Planet Terror, I thought was great although not my usual type of film. Ya I noticed it was digital but Rodriguez's use of the dust and specks, flares and fades out it just felt like art if you get what I meant. Very masterfully done especially with the "sex scene" then the missing reel. The camera work I really, really enjoyed. The trailers, I loved each had their own look and were hilarious. I'm not fond of Eli Roth but his was hilarious. So there I was so pumped for Death Proof, just the whole look and Kurt Russel but I was totally disappointed. It felt so long because the dialogue kept going and going - I don't want to get specific because I don't want to spoil things. People started to walk out and I was so close to, I really think it was Taratino playing a joke knowing people would stay waiting for something to happen. It wasn't a bad movie just it seemed no one else took it seriously but Taratino took it way too far. The camera work and general feel were good but I really think and always thought Rodriguez is the better director and more talented writer, but that's just me. The best part is the china doll's various appearances for the end credits. Also, did anyone notice and think it was weird that there was never a hair in the gate and that also taratino's was too clean after watching the others? It annoyed me, usually these movies always got one appearance of a bad gate.