Mark Kenfield

Exercise. Move. Build some muscles. And someway, somehow find a way to maintain some of it whilst in production. The difference it makes to your days when your body is strong is something you simply can't fully appreciate until you go to work in good shape.

You'll be amazed by just how awfully you can light a truly beautiful woman and get away with it!

To be fair to Greig, he did clarify quite clearly that it was the texture and imperfections in the roughly shot film that was drawing younger people to it, and that it was precisely because the rougher the film looks, the more distinct it becomes as a format. I don’t know if the tone is somewhat obscured by the Aussie accent, but he genuinely wasn’t having a go at her. Just highlighting the difference in approach to the medium between those who came up on it, and those who are discovering it now. (And I couldn’t agree more with you about Kate’s work ? )

Huh? Which version of their podcast have you been listening to? ? A different one than me I guess. Their episode with Bev Wood they did basically nothing other than wax lyrical on film and its process. Indeed that episode is one of the most in-depth discussions of the analog process that I’ve ever heard anywhere. The only thing I’ve heard them steer away from is the “Film vs. Digital” debate, which they seem pretty sick of talking about. They’ve also made it pretty clear that their hesitancy around shooting film these days, relates to serious problems they’ve had with some of the processing on their more recent film jobs. And not with shooting film itself.

Combining totally different metrics into an average seems like an intrinsically flawed methodology to me. As each of the measurements is looking at different things (so the relationships between each measurement aren't 1:1). CRI is a common reference, but it uses far too limited a sample size to be of much use. At best it's a coarse measurement and has to be treated as such. TLCI has a number of detractors (on the basis that it was initially measured using primarily broadcast cameras), however, to-date I've found it the most useful and reliable measurement of the bunch - anything in the 90s (and particularly 95+) seems to work very solidly on single-chip cameras, and never requires any target correction in grading. SSI I like because it's no nonsense, and simply gives you an exact comparison to a "perfect" black-body radiating reference (tungsten or daylight). And when you overlay the spectral readouts of a particular illuminant over a reference spectrum, you can see instantly the colours in which that particular illuminant is going to be deficient.

It’s HARD. Really hard. I’d always suggest shooting a little wider than your final frame, so that you can crop-in and finesse the end of the pan in post.

Well, I gather I wasn’t actually born yet when HMIs were first invented ?? and I’m pretty sure the same goes for Kino Flos. So it’s never been all that big of an issue for me ?‍♂️ Working with LEDs is no great change from working with Kinos. The differences are mainly just colour-shiftless dimming, battery operability and more recently, better colour rendering. And then the more customisable aspects like lighting effects, strip lighting etc. Oooh “The Orb Light”! Good choice ? the main things you can do are remove any barndoors or detachable components that will radiate heat closer to the umbrellas than necessary. And keep as much of an air gap between the two umbrellas as you can (without the spill becoming a problem), it’s a booklight, so there will already be light going everywhere, so you usually have a fair bit of leeway on that point.

SOLD.

I'm going to reject the premise of my own hypocrisy on this particular occasion, because this one is literally a promotional video for a specific camera! ? (And therefore, like Tarantino's 70mm roadshow, falls within the 'exemption' category). So the rule still stands!

That was wonderful! Thanks for sharing Sat. What a shot!

David, do you do much to exaggerate the height difference between Alex and Rachel? I know that Alex is tiny, but apparently Rachel is pretty tiny too, and yet she seems to tower over Alex in a lot of scenes (even when they're seated opposite each other in diners etc.

I still use my DHL4s constantly, indeed I use tungsten all the time (whenever power permits really). Not for anything daylight based (I stick with HMIs and LEDs for that these days) but there's always plenty of occasions to bring them out. And it's SO nice to not have to worry about colour.

Hi Lloyd, sent you a PM. ?

Well the first step is to not group those opinions together. They're not cohesive, because they're not the same opinions. My point about the Hateful Eight roadshow is a very specific one, and has nothing to do with the fact it was shot on film - it has to do with the reasons that particular example of a filmmaker trumpeting the format they shot on, is an inherently different thing to any Regular Joe stating they shot on Arri/Red/Film in advance of actually talking about the film they've made. And I know this well because I've shot for such people in the past - and the "prestigious" formats we've shot in, have done diddly squat to save those films from themselves. I have four rolls of Kodak 7207 sitting in my fridge (with the vegetables) at the moment, one of the first festivals I took out the "Best Cinematography" prize for was for a film shot on S16mm, and I've come THIS close to shooting two separate features on film (one on S16mm Tri-X and the other on Vision 3 S35mm). I also don't want to tally up just how much I've spent on post-production materials over the years to create film emulations for digitally originated films (it's a solid four-figures). I love film deeply, I prefer the on-set workflow it provides, and I certainly do not want to see it eliminated as a format option. At the same time though, no image format - either film or digital, from S16mm, to S35mm, to large-format or even IMAX, is ever going to change the frames I would compose for a project, or how I would light them. So I'd like to think I can maintain at least some objectivity as to the actual differences particular formats can make.

The point remains that they were literally installing 65mm projectors in theatres in order to show the film in traditional 65mm projection. There's an inherently different objective there, to someone declaring their shooting format for something that's only going to be seen on Vimeo or 2k digital projection.

When you have Quentin's track record, and are literally installing 65mm projectors in theatres around the world, to facilitate a large-format "roadshow" film projection rollout... then yeah, sure, you get a pass to namedrop the technology. Likewise Nolan, or anyone else shooting on IMAX cameras. These are the exceptions that prove the rule. But for everyone else? The rule still applies.

I could not agree more.

I would suggest bringing some inline dimmers and a bunch of different halogen light globes with you, both edison and bayonet based ones (probably some practical lamps as well if your art “department” aren’t doing that already). Depending on the locations, some high CRI fluorescent tubes might be useful as well If you can’t “light” the spaces, then having some control of the practicals can make a big difference.

The dual Canon battery to V-mount/Gold-Mount converter plate that Tilta have just announced, make it considerably more interesting to me. There are so many appealing options out there (or on the way soon), and they all seem to offer superb image quality - so I really think it's feature-sets and easy of use that are going to make the decisions for people moving forwards.

Price drop to $1,700 USD per set + shipping

Price drop to $1,100 USD + shipping

Price drop to $3,200 USD + shipping.

John Brawley did a very useful comparison test of Arriraw to Prores4444 with the Alexa a few years back:

Yeah, after a bunch of fiddling that became apparent. Fortunately I was able to use the Arri Frame Guide Builder to create some custom 6:5 frame guides to import into the camera (with masks) to give us accurate framing, and then we just did the desqueeze in the monitors. Footage came out very nicely. I shot mostly at 400 ISO to compensate for the higher noise of smaller sensor area.

Not quite the look I'm going for Max ?