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!

On 8/6/2020 at 5:56 AM, Satsuki Murashige said:

Was listening to Roger and James Deakins’s podcast yesterday, and on a recent episode with Greig Fraser, Mr. Fraser mentioned how his young 2nd Unit DP on a recent project was raving about film. He watched some of her celluloid-based projects, and said they ‘looked like crap.’ He went on the clarify that the images were grainy, underexposed, and generally rough looking. 

Now, I’m sure he didn’t mean anything personal by it and he seems like a pretty decent fellow, but I was a bit taken aback. He called her out by name. I happen to know this DP as we were camera assisting around the same time, and I find her work inspiring. It is rough and wild, in a Chris Doyle sort of way. That’s what’s beautiful about it to me. 

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 ? )

2 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

I really enjoy the 'Team Deakins' podcast but when a guest speaks about their love of film its embarrassing to anyone with half a brain how they want to change the subject or how they steer conversations......I just think the superstars have a responsibility to keep the options open for everyone shooting motion images.....

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.

4 hours ago, Larry Stone said:

@Mark Kenfield before HMI and LED lights how did you handle the mix color of tungsten and daylight?

Off Topic I'm going to try your mobile umbrella book light contraption, with my tota lights! Tota output 750watts. Looks like you used westcott 7ft umbrella with a 2k. Any other tips to avoid melting, the umbrella? All safety tips are appreciated!!  

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.

21 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

It’s funny how we only just had a conversation in another thread about how any film introduced with the format as the defining aspect (ie “Here’s My 35mm Short Film!”) is almost certain to be rubbish, and here we have “Blah Blah: A Sony Alpha Film”.. ?

You know I love you guys, and you are cinematographers, but the film crew‘s woes and the camera they used was not the interesting story here. I kept wanting to know what the guy who was actually risking his life was experiencing, not what the camera ISO was.

But I guess as a Sony A7S promo ad it was OK.

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!

On 7/30/2020 at 6:50 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

Like this? We briefly thought about having Alex sit on a stool or putting her a small apple box but Alex reminded us that part of her dialogue was mocking how tall he was, so it was better to maintain the height difference. Plus we didn't shoot coverage between them so that wasn't an issue. 

Usually in this case rather than overs, you shoot raking shots past the taller person's body onto the other person, but then you don't get as tight an eyeline. If you want a tight eyeline, then you'd probably use singles.

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.

23 hours ago, Lloyd Kozel said:

Hi Mark,

Any chance you would consider $3,000.00 USD for the pair?

Sincerely,

Lloyd

Hi Lloyd, sent you a PM. ?

5 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I still can't really figure out your, Robin's and Phil's viewpoint on this. You say that someone who pretentiously brags about the format as the first thing they do is going to be showing something that's worthless dross. But it's an odd thing to get your goat, if you know what I mean. An odd bee to have in your bonnet. Really, an odd thing that definitely gets your knickers in knots. Now, I know, you don't like to realise this about yourselves. But I must say it, guys. You sound irritated by people who shoot film. 

It's just so obvious.

... And someone needed to tell you.

 

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.

21 hours ago, Ben Ericson said:

Sure, but it just shows that people of all skill levels often take pride in their choice of format, whether it be the iPhone, Alexa, or Film.

You could maybe just say that when any filmmaker tells you about their short film, chances are that it won't be great.

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.

8 minutes ago, Ben Ericson said:

Oddly this is the first thing I thought of. ? I heard it did pretty well!

https://nofilmschool.com/2015/11/quentin-tarantino-hateful-eight-65mm-ultra-panavision-70mm

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.

3 hours ago, Phil Connolly said:

The basic rule of film production is if the filmmaker introduces it as:

"My 35mm short film...." 

Its nearly always terrible... its an immutable. 

If the technology is the first thing the filmmaker mentions, they have their priorities wrong. 

(this isn't just a film issue -digital has its own share of miss priorities.  "My RED 8K anamorphic film..." is just as likely to be just as meh, but higher resolution and less grain)

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 ?