XiaoSu Han

as usual, questions, comments and criticism welcome shot on RED MX and Cooke S2/S3 lenses the new RED MX chip and it's quite clean iso 1600 mode even made it possible for us to shoot this project on a very low budget a bit grainy at times, but it suits the movie and the look we were after...

here are a couple of updated stills (color and content) - comments and critics welcome

I agree, the colors throw me off too.... apparently the District 9 dusty desaturated orange brown look (sodium vapor does not look like that in my eyes at least) is modern at the moment.

the cinematography kinda turned me off that video quite quickly. I hope we get to see the Alexa in the hands of someone really capable (Richardson or Deakins for example) soon....

We're using the S2's because those are the perfect lenses to achieve some sort of period feel when shooting with the RED. We went with natural light from outside, changed flourobars inside to 5000K bulbs and augmented some shots with kinoflos and bounced 575s. The script is set in the 80s, but since we've such a limited budget some things like the whiteboard can't be avoided.

We're currently in production and I just wanted to share a couple of stills of our latest project shot in New York City. shot on RED MX. questions, critique and comments welcome

oh wow, 25 days only! good luck! how many setups are you aproximately getting each day? what kind of budget was that again?

I like the look of the 99 problems video although I was expecting more like a metal-oriented song with those visuals. Kinda felt misplaced but maybe that was just me. Other than that I really liked the look itself. Great colors.

So if I shoot 2-perf framed for 2.39 I'd do a DI and do an anamorphic print is that correct? Would it be possible to do a "regular" print (1.85?) and have letterboxes or a hard matte? The quality of the anamorphic print would be better but does it matter if the origination format is such a small negative compared to real anamorphic? What's the cost difference? Maybe it would make sense to do an anamorphic print if DI'ed at 4K but do a 1.85 print if DI'ed at 2K? And if I'd go DCP at the end it all doesn't matter... thanks for all the info so far

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=24600 "If I may nit-pick your nit-pick...Arri 'scope ground glass is marked for 2.35:1. 2.39:1 is the scope projection ratio. " Why would ARRI mark their cameras with a 2.35 ground glass with 2.39 as the scope projection ratio? Is it just a way to "frame safer"? Also, Aaton has 2.35 and 2.39 available as ground glass markings for the new penelope, as 2.39 is the correct projection ratio, what sense would it make to get a 2.35 ground glass? cheers

die analoge widerstandsfront! awesome, saw a rolleiflex too :) ps: join the mailing list at konvas.org, good resource if you should have more questions about kinor etc. cheers

It's good to hear that even in 20 years and 20 times the budget, I'll have the same problems as now, that is deciding for projects, letting people down, taking risks etc. - which does not help you of course. It sure is one of the hardest aspects in the industry it seems. Thanks for sharing with us David, really appreciated. In my opinion if there's a 90% chance that you might do another artistically fulfilling feature with directors that you have done 6 features with, you should go with it. I remember you writing about how you've taken the safe route quite often, so maybe you have to try another one this time. Sometimes, 10% makes the difference between a feature DP and a TV DP. So in the end, the gut feeling always is right. If you want to be a feature DP, you have to go for it, and 90% security for an indie movie is as good as it gets, isn't it? :)