Jump to content

Saul Rodgar

Basic Member
  • Posts

    1,677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saul Rodgar

  1. Ian: The unadjusted Tk footage looks fine on my Apple display. The adjusted stuff can get overly bright and soulless IMO. Some of the grabs do look darker than the running footage tho. The most obvious question is how are you metering your light? Beyond that, I think your problem may be of expectations more than anything else. A light meter gives you the proper exposure for 18% gray only, but if the light meter is (luminance) ANSI calibrated it seems the exposure will be proper for 12% gray instead. If you want it brighter (or darker) you have to compensate yourself, and that is the trick, knowing where to measure to get the exposure you expect. I don't know if you are familiar with the zone system, but even somewhat cursory understanding of it can be most useful on the field. The light conditions you were filming under where rather flat, so it makes sense to me the results look the way they do. But they are not underexposed. They look like a lot of the footage I have seen of England, Northern Europe and the Pacific NW in the US, and that is the result of constant overcast skies more than anything else.
  2. It is kind of a pain, but I do it when necessary. I can see the rods through the viewfinder (the rods on my bracket are rather long) but they are not in the shot. I make the hand grip rail go as far back as I can, which is a bit uncomfortable, but I can work with it. I usually cover the rods with camera tape to prevent reflections, tho. I do wish the rods were short and I could screw longer ones as needed, but Aaton did not figure that out until later. It is one of the reasons why 16mm Aaton cameras built a rep as "documentary camera" as opposed to "studio camera," I guess. Another thing to do is to hold camera by the rods and leave the hand grip off the camera. Not ideal, and you need someone to throw the on/ off switch. But I have also made it work.
  3. One of the big reasons why I only can do one big budget feature or TV show a year as an assistant is the drama --if I really need the money, that is, otherwise I won't even consider it. I can't stand endless drama and people barking at each other on set. I don't mind sarcasm and cynicism. But the it is the perennial "do or die" attitude that I found to be trickling down from production on all sets these days, pretty much 24/7 --and all the petty snipping that comes with it-- what gets me. Not worth my time. Yeah, sure, we all need to do our best effort and so on, but when it involves near-unreasonable people with near-unreasonable expectations ALL THE TIME, that is a big put off for me. In fact, I find that I have followed the example of older hands who have developed a very thick crust of cynicism and sarcasm (which I personally have a natural tendency to anyway), to counter the perpetual "end of the world" attitude of production, as a sort of "chill the f--- out, it's only a movie" antidote to the near-maddening stress. I haven't DPd a big show, so I don't know how I would handle all the high-stakes, stressful politicking that comes with the job. As David says, we all gravitate towards the people who we like to work with, but also, we all gravitate to the job situations we like to work in, sometimes subconsciously. I naturally dislike large crowds, so for me that means skeleton crews, B-unit, more running-gun filming, where there isn't the crews by the hundreds, etc. But of course, that can have its own pitfalls. At the end of the day, tho, I rather be poorer than be stressed out half-to-death most of the time . . . ;)
  4. I guess Boddington's point is: Most of us here need help getting our projects off the ground. We sometimes get people who ask for contributions to their projects, but it always seems to come back to this, even if it is just hinted at: How is YOUR project more deserving than my project, for example, or anyone else's, for that matter? Thus, the consensus also seems to be: You are own your own. That leaves the options to fund your project through CC debt (as a lot of us do), get a second job (as a lot of us also do), ask your parents, girl / boyfriend, relatives for money and other more creative ways to secure filming funds. ;) Good luck.
  5. Angenieux has two sets of Optimo zooms (and Digital versions too). They are nice, but the 25-250 is a beast, or course. If I had to shoot a movie using only one lens (for budget, mobility reasons, etc) on a larger format camera (35mm, Red One, etc), I would probably go for the 17-80 mm T2.2 Optimo. http://www.angenieux.com/zoom-lenses/index.php?rub=1
  6. Some cinematographers seem to love the Arri VPs. I find the concept interesting. Dunno if you saw this or not: http://www.northernlightfilms.com/vprime.html
  7. I agree, but I think it would be up to 16 1K monitors put together (depending on aspect ratio), not just 4, which would be a 4:1 aspect ratio image. How many people with a 4K projector AND the ultra high speed internet connection available to them to take advantage of this are out there? Barring that, what monitor supports 4K anyway? Therefore, youtube has gone bat s h i t crazy indeed. Oh, sorry, they just are "ahead of that curve . . ." RED is coming out with the 8K camera any day now, so those "visionaries" at youtube better catch up. But I have plans to upstage them ALL with a 16K pocket camera that records 10,000 fps in 3D at full uncompressed resolutions to be delivered wirelessly to anyone who owns an iPhone, so there :lol:
  8. Like DV, then HDSLRs and non-linear editing, it is a good thing and a bad thing. Good because it gives indies great tools to create and polish great images with very little investment, in a relatively short amount of time. Bad because everyone who has spent millions and countless years acquiring top notch gear and skills now have to compete with everyone and their mothers who are suddenly getting into the business and driving prices WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY down. The revolution is being televised on DIY HDTV apparently.
  9. Bigger sensor cameras like the 7D, generally require focus pulling for low light filming. Smaller sensor cameras are far more forgiving to that, as the smaller the sensor, the more depth of field it has so the focus is not as critical. Nothing wrong with wanting your footage to look with shallow depth of field. Thing is, such productions usually require someone to be in charge of keeping the focus sharp consistently, a full time job. For a porn shoot that has one person holding the camera while making out with someone else, that person simply cannot be focused enough to be pulling focus consistently, so the footage is likely to be out of focus throughout, and therefore unusable. So, I would shoot all of the material either with a smaller sensor camera (there are hundreds of models out there, but an example is below) or use the 7D for the material that you can control the focus on (non-sex) and the sex scenes with a camera with autofocus and smaller sensor so that you get the best of both cameras. http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Handycam-HDR-XR150E-Definition-widescreen/dp/B003C2ESQ0 Rent any camera (preferably the 7D), if you haven't bought the 7D already, and try to shoot while making out, recreating what you want to accomplish for the porn movie, but as a test. When you are editing later, you'll see what I am talking about. It is not so easy as it looks. Try looking for honest making-of-porn movies (there is a few online) and you'll see even low budget porn generally involves more people than just the talent holding the camera to make it happen successfully.
  10. Unless they are re-writing their RAW code, let's not forget RED "RAW" is heavily compressed. So RED's got massive sensors whose output is put to through the wringer to keep the data in manageable file size. Last I heard, Alexa's RAW wasn't nowhere near as compressed as RED's, if at all. So while RED's camera may have a much bigger sensor and pixels on the frame, there is no telling what one is actually missing due to RED RAW's compression. The smaller Alexa frame without RED RAW compression could theoretically push Epic's bigger frame with far more compression out of the perceived resolution game.
  11. Hmm, first thing you should change your screen name to your real name as per forum rules. Being how you are wanting to shoot porn and may be a woman, I can see why you wouldn't want to do that, but those are the forum rules. Nothing wrong with shooting porn tho. There are a few anti-porn crusaders out there, but, hey! consenting adults will do what they will and I for one want to keep the government and religious zealots out of the privacy of their (consenting) adult bedrooms and production rooms. :ph34r: Second thing, you are asking for trouble in a number of fronts. You will likely need to rent lenses that are wider and faster than what you have now: not cheap and depending what you get (the really bright and wide PL mount cine lenses), you will need to permanently modify your camera, also not cheap. Then, if you shoot on the 7D in low light (T1.4 or T1.8 on fast and heavy lenses) with only one person (sometimes), your focus and image stability will be crap. Your footage will be unusable, most likely. For what you describe, I would use a 1/3" chip tiny video camera. There is a reason why 99.9% of porn (POV and otherwise) is currently shot on those types of cameras). You can still light it the way you want, but your depth of field will be greater and much more forgivable, while the camera's lightweight and small size will help with stability problems. With a one person crew, who is also "acting," you can't have it both ways. You could get a still photography 10-20mm zoom, but they are not fast (around f3.5/5.6) and crank the ASA to 6400 or or as high as the camera will go, and stop the lens down to get as much depth of field as possible. That may work for you, but your picture will be noisier than if you used fast lenses wide open of course, but much of your focus troubles will be minimized. But since the camera will be moving all over the place, with varying degrees of focus distance, it will not be perfect. I'd stick to a 1/3" auto-focus hand-held camera for what you are describing. ;) Or use both, get the beauty pre-sex stuff on the Canon and when the action begins, pull out the smaller POV cam, that way you can have it both ways. Have fun!!
  12. "When one of the most respected companies in the industry is just releasing their brightest new star that does 1/5 of the resolution, half the maximum frame rate, in a box three times the size and for 3 times the price… that should tell you how tough a trick EPIC is." "1/5 of the resolution?" So I take it Jim is referring to the Alexa here? If so, Jim undoubtedly is now gone beyond the pale, even for a marketing-man, and officially lost his mind: That is right, Jim, thanks to your god-given right to design amazing camera circuitry, your cameras have the ONLY technology capable of high resolution data motion pictures the world will ever know, and everything else out there is just, well, crap . . . :rolleyes:
  13. Are you sure that is unsqueezed? That looks awfully squeezed to me. You wouldn't be able to project that too well at a movie theater without some crazy letter-boxing. If you keep it at f8 you should be OK.
  14. Agreed, I did read that they were moving away from renting PV lenses and the PV to Canon EF adapters for Canon 5D customers, but not that they were not renting lenses and accesories only anymore.
  15. Gotcha. I am no expert either. My empirical understanding of it says no, FF35 and S35mm lenses would have pretty much the same light gathering capabilities. I cannot find any indication to the contrary online. However, for medium format and beyond, what you say seems completely reasonable, as for 65mm lenses a f2.8 is as bright as they seem to get, and for 4x5 and 8x10 f5.6 seems to be the limit as well.
  16. Where, oh where did you read that? Do light meters have film gauge / sensor size settings to compensate exposure between 16mm, S35mm and FF35?
  17. Try the 7D as well, you will be needing that side-by-side comparison. It very likely will be easier to manage.
  18. Not to mention the enormous amount of fun you will have keeping the image focused properly. Do yourself a favor and think exhaustively before you commit to the idea. Shoot a test, project it on a big screen and go from there.
  19. A 50 mm f 1.4 lens transmits that much light regardless of the gauge / sensor size you use it on. On a larger gauge than designed to cover, the lens image would simply vignette, not go darker. Larger format cameras do not need more light on the sensor / film plane than smaller ones. If so then you would need light meters with a "sensor size/ gauge" setting. I do agree that FF35 is a fad. Anyone who is tried to pull focus on a 5D mkII at anything over f4 for theatrical projection can tell you it is not as easy as it seems, slowing things down, needing more takes, realizing later the footage is out of focus and therefore unusable, etc. There is a reason why 35mm motion picture frame size is the standard: is the biggest frame size that is manageable to work with from focusing issues to image quality. It is arrogant for camera manufacturers to simply discard over 100 years of practical tradition, proven frame size and push for a larger format simply because they can. Again, only those who have been trying to keep the camera focus consistent on the 5D can understand the challenge A person whom I know traveled to Africa with a 5D and a smaller HDMI monitor to gather footage for a documentary, running gun style, but with assistants. They came back to discover that 90% of the footage was unusable due to focus issues. Had they stuck to 2/3" or even S35 frame size, they would have been OK. Being not familiar with the FF35 format and desiring to go big, they discovered point blank that bigger is not always better. ;)
  20. Since the center part of the (larger fomat) lens is usually sharpest, which is the part of the lens that you would use if you used it with a smaller format camera, I think there was something else going on there. I have many 35mm lenses (including a Pentax f1.4 50mm prime) that I use on R16 and S16 (but not 8mm) with outstanding results. Your adapter and / or lens were likely faulty. If the lens, the adapter and the camera are all in good shape, the larger format lens will very likely work on smaller gauge cameras, barring some back focus / flange focal issues or other well established problems. One shouldn't just say "I had a bad experience once with a similar set up, you may want to avoid it altogether" when it has been proven to work elsewhere. For example, 35mm still Canon EF lenses are perfectly usable with XL 1/3" cameras (close to the 8mm frame size) with the right adapter.
  21. I for one don't know, but one would assume that if the original still lenses covered 6 perf FF 35mm, the new rehousing / reissue for cine use would too. Specially with the advent of soon to be released FF35mm sized sensors, Epic et al. Hard to say in a general sort of way, may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer -- as Zeiss also has its still-cum-motion picture rehouse prime set.
  22. I am not sure I understand your question. You are talking about using larger format lenses on smaller gauge film / sensor and the image quality being compromised because of it? If that is the case, the field of view (FOV) will change (narrow) the bigger format lens you use, usually and roughly it will double the FOV for a 16mm lens image on 8mm, or a 35 mm lens image on 16mm. If the lens adapters are well made, further adjustments won't be necessary, unless you intend to pull focus using the lens barrel marks only , in which case, yes you would have to re-collimate the lens. Additionally there are other instances for which you would need to collimate the lens: http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/lenscollimation.html
  23. I'd forgotten about this camera. I love that it seems to have an optical viewfinder and its reduced size. Don't like the price and that it sports a CCD imager, which are generally far more noisy than CMOS sensors. Wonder if the Kinetta will ever come out . . .
  24. This is where the Scarlet 2/3" with interchangeable mounts could work wonders. Alas, it seems to be now permanently stuck in drawing-board limbo. Maybe it'll see the light of day someday . . .
×
×
  • Create New...