Mark Kenfield

Congrats mate! Must have been pretty fascinating.

I'm going to see if my VPN can move me to South Africa temporarily to check out the trailer.

Editing, Makeup and Cinematography... All UTTERLY CRITICAL components of the craft. It does seem a pretty bizarre move to cut those three from the telecast, whilst leaving most of the short-form films in.

Thanks JD. Sounds like a good, simple, fix.

Unfortunately I don't have any old or shabby c-stands to hand. But I think I've found what I'm looking for though. Avenger make aluminium combo stand extensions, the 142B and the 146B, and they seem to fit the bill pretty perfectly for what I need. The weight is pretty good too, 2.4kg and 2.8kg respectively.

Are you planning to rent out the camera as well? If so, pony up the extra for the Mini. The demand for it would more than cover the additional cost. It's the most popular camera out there.

If not? Well then it's an open field.

In my own experience of Arri ownership for the past two years - I've shot in ARRIRAW for literally two jobs. None of the producers I work with will pony up the cash to record raw.

So I'd weigh that into the equation when deciding. How likely are you to need to raw functionality? If you don't, does the added expense of the internal raw justify its cost?

4:3 is another area to consider. Just how much anamorphic (or 4:3 spherical) work do you see yourself doing? If it's only going to be a very occasional foray, then perhaps don't worry about it, and simply rent a 4:3 camera when you need one.

Now that the Amira can be licenced up to shoot Arriraw, it's just as much a player for the highest-end (spherical) work as any of the other Arris. And the lighter weight and smaller size is wonderful - it can also go up to 200fps compared to 120fps with the other cameras.

As for the classic? There's a lot of serious TV shows shooting on classic Alexas at the moment. If you're shooting for a 2k/HD finish anyway (as most shows still are), there's a strong argument to be made for it - the cheaper camera rental cost frees up more budget for more important things like lens, lighting and grip.

They're all superb cameras, with the same image, just different strengths. I think you just need to weigh up which of those strengths is most important to you.

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to track down a lightweight (preferably aluminium) c-stand column (ideally a 30" or 40") with a standard Junior pin base, to use to extend the reach of an Avenger A4050CS Boom Stand.

A steel column would be too heavy for my tastes. So I'm wondering if anyone knows of any lighter options?

Cheers,

Mark

Just listened to the podcast you did for American Cinematographer on the series David, and it was terrific. Loved that you got right into the nitty gritty of it.

It sounds like a really interesting and enjoyable series to be working on.

Still one of my favourite shots (and scenes) of all time. Super cool Dom. Is the lens still in service?

One of my favourite gaffers just recently retired. I was happy for him, but bummed out for myself. Seeing all that knowledge fall away from you is always a shame.

still for sale?

It's sold, sorry.

If the 60D and the Pocket Camera are your only options, then I'd strongly suggest you go with the pocket camera - because it records in a high-enough quality codec, with good dynamic range.

Realistically though; 14-pages-a-day, with a single camera (especially a camera that needs to be frankenrigged to become workable on-set for shooting at that kind of pace) is asking for trouble.

If you can swing two cameras for the shoot (get ones that match) that will make a massive difference for acquiring enough basic coverage to have something you can actually cut together cohesively.

Given that you're only talking about a single week of shooting, the rental cost of a more conventional camera is going to be a paltry outlay for what it will gain you in shooting speed.

Depending on what you have available in terms of crew, you might even want to consider renting something like a couple of the new Fujifilm X-T3 cameras. They will record 10-bit 4k footage (which would be very useful for cropping in to 2k for additional coverage options), and it has a genuinely usable autofocus system (with eye-detection) which could possibly help you make your days by keeping your actors in focus for you.

I think you'll run into problems with a 3 wheel dolly on rough terrain-even with pneumatic tires.

 

 

 

probably be ok on cement sidewalks and parking lots but with low boys and an HMI head, using stands with pneumatic wheels, it is still precarious when moving those lights. I can't see it being much different with a camera on a wheeled tripod.

 

just my thoughts.

 

 

It's not a solution for rough terrain obviously, there you'd just handhold the gimbal.

I'm just wanting a quick and easy solution that can leverage the gimbal's stabilising abilities to provide smooth moves at a constant (and therefore seemingly more dolly-like) height, over flat, hard surfaces.

I imagine you could mount 3 Pneumatic casters to a piece of plywood and then secure the normal tripod sticks to it- to see if it would even function the way you want.

I'm leaning more towards that as the simplest option. I'd probably go with four castors (for stability) two fixed, and two rotating.

Possibly just hard mounting a Miller ground spreader to it, would be the way to go.

I wonder which is the lower-cost solution in general, pneumatic tyres on boards carefully laid down and levelled, or tracks with wheels that fit. Depends on the situation no doubt. Obviously in a rough, bumpy location tracks would be cheaper I'd say.

I'd never be laying down boards, or expecting to use this on rough terrain. That's what dolly track is for.

This is really just for adding stability over flat surfaces - primarily just taking footsteps out of the equation, and keeping the camera height constant.

The Amira is a great camera, and now that you can upgrade it to shoot Arriraw - it will keep up with anything else image quality wise. The only things you really lose out on is a 4:3 sensor (for anamorphic or the rare 4:3 spherical shoot), and camera controls on the assistant's side (when working with a crew).

That said, outside of the occasional documentary shoot, I haven't heard of many productions that rent them.

So if rental income is an important requirement for you, then the Mini is a no-brainer. It appears to be (comfortably) the single most popular camera in rental departments around the world.

Hey guys and girls,

I'm looking for something fairly specific here. A heavy duty tripod dolly, compatible with Miller HD sticks, but with larger pneumatic tyres that will work outdoors and in a range of environments.

I want it to be able to function like a normal tripod dolly, but I'd also like to be able to pair it with my little Ronin-S gimbal. Mounting the gimbal on top of the tripod head to stabilise quick and nasty dolly moves that I make with the dolly in whatever random environment I encounter.

I've been getting remarkably usable results from simply mounting the Ronin-S (or sometimes a Ronin 2) on my Inovativ cart, and pushing that around. It's a nice, cheap and easy path to get (surprisingly often) usable dolly shots, when I don't have a dolly grip or proper crew around me.

However, pushing a large camera cart around is not a particularly nimble process. And having to pull most of the gear off the cart to do so, is equally painful. So I'd like to give it a try with a tripod dolly - which will give me some degree of height adjustability, and a considerably more elegant rig to push around.

Miller make their 480 Studio Dolly, which is well made (as it should be for the price!) but it just has regular caster wheels on it, which are no good off a perfect studio floor.

Does anyone know of some good pneumatic options that would be compatible with the Miller sticks?

Or any good alternatives for achieving the same sort of thing?

I'm really just looking for something with a reasonably wide wheel base, beefy pneumatic tyres (with brakes), and the ability to adjust the height at which I mount the gimbal.

Cheers,

Mark

The waves were fake! That explains it!

I couldn't for the life of me figure out how they managed to keep the camera so perfectly stable while it was being pummelled by the waves.

Don't know why VFX didn't cross my mind.

If you're wanting to shoot anamorphic on a Classic, you'll either need an Alexa Plus 4:3 (with the anamorphic licence installed), or the Alexa Studio.

The Odyssey 7Q will record Arriraw in either 16x9 (up to 60fps) or in 4:3 (up to 48fps). You don't need a raw licence for the camera (the Classics output it natively), but you will need the raw licence for the Odyssey 7Q.

 

I heard somewhere in the Youtube universe that when recording externally with Sony cameras there is an undocumented difference in quality (maybe it was the bit depth?) wether you hit record on the camera itself or only on the recorder.

Hi Hannes,

I've never heard of different record triggering methods affecting the bit depth, that would be a very odd thing to happen. The HDMI port on the F3 will only output 8-bit 4:2:2 though. So don't use that.

Use the SDI A port (or A and B if you need dual-link recording - i.e. for 50p or 60p output if you don't have the RGB444 upgrade for the camera).

I use an Odyssey 7Q with my F3, and record primarily in 10-bit ProRes4444XQ, which provides fantastic images. The F3 may be lacking in features, and ergonomically awkward compared to more modern cameras. But if you treat it as a sensor in a box, and leave the recording to a more advanced external unit - it puts out terrific image quality in SLOG.

Scrap the overheads. Those factory scoop lights are horrific (green one cycle, magenta the next). I'd kill them entirely and build up something more attractive with movie lights.

If you can rig a back light up on the crossbeams, that'd be ideal - but probably requires hiring a cherry picker (which might not be in the budget).

I'd be aiming to keep light off the walls and ceiling, as the light colour will kill your contrast as the spill goes everywhere.

A story question I had, that my date to the film and I argued about - at the riot, I got the impression that the martial artists were fighting the students on the government's behalf (based on the fact there were army officers at their training camp, I assumed to recruit them).

My date thought they were fighting the government.

What do you guys think?

The AC article specifically mentions this - Hoytema said he preferred using Panavision cameras because you can put the ND in front of the gate and not have to look through heavy ND filters.

Ah! Well that explains it. Mystery solved, thanks David.

T/2.8 at 1000 ASA? You must have had 9 stops of ND up front!

What were you shooting on that had a viewfinder bright enough for that Miguel, I find I really struggle with 6-stops in front of the mirror, and basically can't operate through the viewfinder at 7-stops up front (and that's under the blazing Australian summer sun).

So 9 or 10 stops of ND just sounds crazy to me.

Keep in mind that this was shot on film, which is a form of filtration in a way. The movie was covered in the Dec. 2011 issue of American Cinematographer -- it mentions that it was shot on Fuji Reala 500D for day scenes and Fuji Eterna 500T for night scenes, often underexposed for more grain. Reala 500D was a fairly soft, grainy, some somewhat lower-contrast film. The article mentions smoke, long lenses, and a lot of work on zooms -- all Panavision Primos. No mention of filters.

500 ASA stock for daytime exteriors?! I wonder how they managed that (especially if they were underexposing in order to push process)?

I don't remember it being a particular deep focus film, so I wonder how the operators were able to see through the viewfinders with the volume of ND you'd need to get a moderate aperture at 500 ASA.

Of course due respect the the great director.. but really .. to be have never shoot anything and then claim to be the sole DP.. with a bit of help..I dont know .. its just a bit off isn't it ..

 

Olivares was rumored to be the DoP..? I mean he was there right .. ?.. who operated the camera . the fact they were never mentioned again is another story.. wasn't that article written after the film had been made..

 

Haskell Wexler shot half of the finished picture "Days of Heaven "and was credited with additional photography .. Chivo got an Oscar for Gravity and didnt even mention the CGI guy in his speech.. egos are at play in this business ..

Before they hit the big time together. Cuaron worked as a DP for a while, and Chivo was his gaffer. Then when Cuaron started Directing, Chivo stepped up to DP.

I either read (or watched, cant quite remember which) that story in an interview with Chivo at some point.

Which is simply to say that Cuaron isnt unblooded as a DP, having a crack at it for the first time.

It seems a bit unnecessarily confusing. But I can get behind calling things "Digital 65mm", "Digital 35mm", to distinguish the format used.

Though to be honest, outside of an IMAX screen, I simply can't tell the difference between large-format and regular format digital.

I saw the film in a regular cinema over the weekend (probably in 2k projection), and it was glorious. I think "Slice of life" is a perfect way to describe it. The sense of 'living' through Cleo's experiences felt really strong, and Christ - that ending! My heart was pounding and my eyes started welling up.

The scope of the thing was just awesome (and I mean that in the older, more formal meaning of the word). The city streets, the hospital, the riot, the slums, the martial arts school, all felt as real and 'alive' as anything I've ever seen projected. Just magnificent.

The photography was exquisite in its simplicity, and its ability to simply hold you through each scene.

And HOW THE HELL did they get that final shot?!

How did the waves not disturb the camera? How did the camera keep travelling out there? How the heck did he light the thing to capture everything with the world's most intense backlight?! I couldn't detect any kind of a source, but I also can't see how even the Alexa 65 could have held that scene in its full dynamic range.

Love this one Bruce! Would love to hear how you achieved it.

Is it just a cool top light, a warm back edge, and some really subtle fill on the front? I love the feel of complexity to it.

Am I the only person who's a little impatient with the endless rebranding of various flavours of MPEG-4 under pointless, needlessly-incompatible corporate terminology?

 

XAVC, AVC-Intra and AVCHD, and their multitudinous sub-sub-subtypes, are all essentially MPEG-4 AVC; any compliant decoder will decode them, except the ones in the nonlinear edit suites tend to be not so compliant and designed to handle only one variant.

 

And to top it off, none of them offer the simple (superior) drag-and-drop nature of ye olde Prores.