Jump to content

Sam Wells

Basic Member
  • Posts

    1,747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sam Wells

  1. The "film slayer" (if/when) or game changer isn't the (fill in the blank) camera, it's the DI or Digital Master. -Sam
  2. Funny how the extra feet are always at the beginning <_< Go ahead, Explain THAT by quantum mechanics :P -Sam
  3. Hi Chris, I didn't say "complex", I said "difficult" - and included "process" so as to imply "acknowledgment" (this would be the parameters of the form, or surface: paper in your example) and confrontation (resistance overcome). -Sam
  4. I take a slightly broader view of what science is than John, and a perhaps a refocussed view of the possibility of cinema as a solo art in relation to David. I would say that in the broadest possible sense an art is the mastery (or attempted mastery as I'm as much interested in process as I am in 'Platonic competitions') of difficult materials; this could be photography, cooking, flower arrangement, etc. In the formal sense I think an art, a fine art let's say, is the mastery of (process therein) of difficult materials for the sake of that struggle; and while that would seem imply "art for art's sake" (which I'm not sure I have a problem with) to me it axiomatically implies the inherently problematic nature of the materials of our world and the problematic nature of our selves in relation material and other selves. -Sam
  5. Well he'll learn some B&W by shooting it. He did say cinematography student. To the OP, I think getting aggressive with filtration on 5222 (probably a good choice given the filter factors of things like a #25 might produce results that are satisfying altho not true monochrome IR as per Brian's good and informative post. http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/tipps/sw_fotografie_e.htm If you were going a digital post route there are some interesting possibilities with using a color original in camera but likely another subject entirely. (And drives the purists here crazy !) -Sam
  6. After I shot my one feature - which I also photographed, "Indie" directors I know said very complimentary things about how I shot it; but when I suggested they could hire me I often got a cold shoulder - I realized it could be the were afraid I'd try & play director.... which is as far from the truth as you can get, why would I want the hardest job in the world too ? I suppose I'm a filmmaker who is 'a cinematographer by nature' in distinction here. -Sam
  7. Even when they did sell it, it wasn't through their Motion Picture division like other stocks but through Instrumentation Marketing (I think it was called then) dealers. It took a round of phone calls to to find someone who could even sold it in 16mm, which was what I needed - and was not a stocked item (short shelf life) I couldn't swing the minimum which would have cost me $8,000 IIRC. Joaquin, are you doing a film or digital finish ? -Sam
  8. Already you can have some very interesting degrees of lighting *control* in DI/digital post. (I seem to be in a minority here who sees this as a good thing). This certainly will become more flexible and powerful, but pure CGI aside, you still have to illuminate the base image and choices there drive everything that happens downstream. -Sam
  9. I would argue this is not true if you are willing to take full advantage of RAW capture. I suppose with really fine tuned viewing LUT's you could get close but really I think shooting RAW requires interpretive pre-visualization of a kind not dissimilar to film shooting skills. -Sam
  10. FWIW/FYI: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/mcu...ital_file_pack/ -Sam
  11. In all due respect Simon, if he'd said "hiccup effect" I'd have little idea what he was talking about; "step printing" in the context he used it told me what he meant by analogy. -Sam
  12. Well I would say one limit to exposure control here would be what is essentially - control-wise, not codec-wise - the jpeg output of the camera in this case. (yes I know it's H.264, but I mean in terms of pre-set interpretations) * If the video output of that camera were from RAW as opposed to being pre-processed then a pre-grade - could have done a much better look...... I know the point was to illustrate what the camera dose "natively" so to speak, but this footage could really use a more aggressive grade in any case..... * why I objected on CML to misuse of the term RAW on the initial blog -Sam
  13. I guess, (and you could use use ProRes also) - But it's backwards ! Cineform, MJPEG2000, type codec is what the _camera_ should be using ! -Sam (I downsample my Nikon RAW converted to TIFF in Shake and output ProResHQ)
  14. Hi Stephen, was this with a current firmware build, or Build 17 or was footage from both - or ? Thanks -Sam
  15. Hi Saul, I meant the street stealth aspect ! otherwise I dunno; what I'm doing in digital is way too out there for young whippersnappers to want to imitate B) -Sam
  16. A major appeal for me, but if this becomes ubiquitous then our game is up maybe ? :( I hope RED's DSLR doesn't end up looking like some kind of high tech weapon..... (photojournalists will want to stay away in droves if it does) -Sam
  17. This is the real killer / deal-breaker in "Indie" films especially. Overly cringe-inducing if they are playing cops, detectives etc. -Sam
  18. It's sometimes called "retinal skipping" -- caused by the fact the cells sensitive to light on your retina are spaced at around 7 minutes of arc - so if a lateral displacement occurs frame to frame that 'skips' the adjacent row if cells your brain would expect the object to be normally placed on your brain does not interpret the displacement as smooth continuous movement. A solution: pan more slowly or use a higher frame rate. -Sam
  19. You can't make the statement "Reverses." With respect to where ? Go behind a screen which has any degree of transparency and take a look :) -Sam
  20. Which both drives all this but at the same time is why everyone is not diving headfirst into the deep end - they're letting RED do this :o :) as it's a shift in engineering direction --- I'd love it if I had my D3's chip in a 24 fps camera with full "4K" (in quotes to avoid THAT barfight Round 12) & even the form factor would work for me (but not everyone) but there are issues with viewing system (scary enough to flap that mirror as fast as it does) and shutter (a disk would be better but now we've rebuilt the box) etc. ps David I'm glad to have Live View also but in my case surprised how little I've used it... -Sam
  21. I don't either but they must have been thinking this capability when they designed the Exspeed processor (they've had 1080i out via HDMI since the D3 introduction....) agree about the lagginess, I rarely use Live view on my D3 - it's a videotap at this point really -Sam
×
×
  • Create New...