ross e lea

"Sharpness is a psycho-visual sensational proportional to the square of the area under a curve plotting contrast ratio against detail finen..." iS tHis eNgliSh???

is TriggerStreet worth a crap? isnt it true that some festivals only accept film not video?

that'd be awesome! in fact...we're gonna be editing our first short film this month and we wanta get it out there...but dont know really how to push it. for instance what festivals are even worth bothering with? some of them seem like they're just here to take a few bucks from aspiring dreamers and they dont really pull any weight at all...and I know that the short film world only gets thicker as technology gets thicker, but I could use a lot of help with how to go about marketing the film. thnaks yall lea

fair enough. ok lets say I'm asking this then: the hardest part I'm finding with lighting is how bright is too bright and how dark is too dark? is there a rule of thumb where you want to try and get your overhead and underhead limited from middle gray? and just knowing how far those readings will look on film just takes practice I suppose.

for example...many shots the persons face is looking down while the camera is pointing up at them. now even though my "overall" readings were f4....their face (in this instance) would be 2.2 at times. so what you're saying is maybe the up above lights and stuff might be blown out a little? I guess this whole scenario is a good learning experience to winning the battle of trying to figure out how to judge the headroom on each side of your key(middle) f-stop. like if a face is what you're going for is metered at lets say f5.6 and your lights above are a much brighter f22, then your shadow points in low areas are only reading at f4......I used to figure..."oh, I'll just even it out in the middle-which would be f8 1/2 or so.." then come to find out after processing that your face is too dark! I notice when you look at Kodak's example images where they show all the light readings, etc. that there's like 3 stops or so OVER and UNDER the middle f-stop they're going for.....is this kinda of place to start? 3stops over and under? I know a lot of it is just HOW you want your picture to look and feel...but I'm just speaking in context of how to just get a better handle on response of lighting. Also, thanks Mr. Nash and Mullen...you guys are usually the greatest help I've seen in responses of the forums. :-)

In my experience with using DVX and HVX up the wazoo for projects,etc. I've found that there are so many factors beyond what I ever thought that accomplishes this "making HD portray that film look" which is basically the direction that some of Hollywood is going because of greater digital advancements. [And its NOT just 24p dependant!!!] In all my conclusions and tests you've got to take into account many things: (these are in order to what I think is the most important) 1. the camera's color and information reading ability (I dont even consider anything that doesn't have 3chip, thus close as you can to 4:4:4) 2. lighting, lighting, and lighting!!!!! (once you've got a sufficient camera, I believe this to be most important aspect to your "look")(I really believe that equally or MORE important as using 24p, the way that film just simply looks and responds to a picture is in the way it responds to light and color) lighting HAS to good!... which brings us to point 3. 3. the way the camera reads and records light values (video is very harsh and realistic; film is very soft and reads light/colors with so much more complexity) I've seen quite of few pieces shot with a non-24p camera that looked tons better than many DVX or HVX stuff out there because of doing such a fantastic job at studying the scene and doing great lighting! 4. progressive scan (reading the image non-interlaced is certainly another factor that helps create a dream-like movement in your footage; video just simply moves differently whether its 24p or not (the camera isn't really processing it at true 24p anyway) ...and it moves differntly especially if you start panning or whippin the camera around...it'll make it look like a documentary very quick.) which brings us to point 5. 5. camera movement and composition (very smooth and professional shots will do nothing but help the feel and quality of how "film-like" the shot will be. and, as I said...you want to avoid fast movements with HD or any video camera....unless you're trying to achieve that "documentary" look....which is fine if thats what you're going for; otherwise, go for well thought out, smooth shots. like using dollies, steadicams, or just not moving the camera at all. anyway....thats my two cents. but call me bias to film.....because I hate "trying to spray cologne on a turd to make it smell better" to really get a "solid" result out of any non-film source, the kinda setups that can even get kinda close are ones that non of us poor film makers can afford... so just stick with what will make you happy and take the load off of the cologne-turd battle,....FILM! besides you can rent something like a bolex EBM or Eclair ACL for much less a day than a big fancy HD camera. then by the time you buy and develop film you've spent about the same amount of money anyway....so DUH. but again...just my opinion!

however, my edit will be going for a slightly grunge/contrasty look. so thats why I wasnt afraid of pushing it like I did. its just that film always kinda makes ya a little nervous becasue of the money put into the process.

in my experience with underexposed 16mm (beyond f-stop capabilities of the camera or light readings in the dark) 9 times out of 10 you're crushing the curve so bad that even if you did push it up to a workable level...you've already lost all color and clarity in your image that you will be disappointed and will find it really hard to match the other footage regardless...because like the previous post said...and I agree with: it does more to it than just less light...it actually gives you a different looking image too. what I would have done in your situation (right when you noticed that your meter wasn't reading) is shoot that scene the next day when you're ready and you KNOW what the result will be. also, the fact that you mentioned 250D even tells me that you're bottom end with that (especially at sundown, with no meter reading) will be beyond what 250D can even handle...I'm guessing you were right about 2 stops short if your camera was at 2.2. And....being 2 stops short when it dark is totally different than being 2 stops short in bright daylight. maybe with 500 speed you could've had a chance, but I personally think it's pretty bleek to expect happy results. But you never know...I could be wrong. good luck! :-)

been making a short this week...all with 7218 16mm inside a pet store where all the lighting I used was mostly the natural flourescent lights in the store, thus, no matter where I went to take meter readings....the character's face (using incident) always read 4....occasionally 2.8 if we were in a corner or something. because of the even readings I got everywhere....I just decided to leave my camera on 2.2 the entire way just to give myself headroom...because I've learned that overexposing is ALWAYS better than underexposing. so in most cases I've been shooting 2.2 in readings of 4. am I ok?

Imagery looks pretty darn decent. :-) But I think your big mistake is that its obvious you edited the trailer to show what you could pull off with the HVX....instead of drawing us in with the story. at this point it just looks like a reel to me. make me believe !

you're probably not getting any responses here because cinematography.com is on the upper end of forums...so it doesn't reply very well to non-film projects such as DVX100, etc...unless its good to exceptional work! you might try DVXuser.com...you'll get better play with people regarding your short. But anywho, I viewed your short...and to me I guess there wasn't enough anecdotes to keep me interested. the dry humor didnt really bother me because I dont mind that stuff...but the humor seemed to drag just about the whole idea and not a constant occurance of things to laugh at... in today's world of shorts...you've gotta keep the viewer going! we've been trying to shoot this one short for over a year now...but the script just isnt where we know it needs to be in order to keep people driven with entertainment. because shorts are usually done with DV quality due to budget, terrible lighting, poor acting, not so great directing, and usually no makeup or quality sets..at all; statistics show that its hard to keep a person watching a short for longer than 15-20 seconds. Thus...you've gotta make up the difference by presenting a KILLER story that always keeps the viewer wanting more! And I thought your idea wasn't bad....but you lacked funny happenings within that idea as a whole. Next short you have...just sit down for a couple hours at a coffee shop with 2 other buddies every saturday for a month and brainstorm anecdotes within a story idea and jot them down...then piece them all out to keep the story driving. keep it up

well then.....who would you COMPLETELY trust in giving you a solid development and transfer? (to digibeta)

havent done that, good advice. the grainyness seems to always be in areas that are all one color, or blurry backgrounds due to depth of field focuses. is that common with all film?

well...I know its not my camera. My camera just got back fully maintained and upgraded by Cameraspro. I know its not the film, it was brand new. From reputation, Colorlabs seems to do a great job, so I'd like to think its nothing they do. which basically leaves exposure.....howver, I guess I feel like my exposure was at least close to what it shouldve been, unless you object based upon the raw image above. maybe I'm paranoid of overexposing too much sometimes...and dont trust that having more headroom is always better than underexposing it. by initial look, does the image look underexposed to you? and based upon my explained metering technique used, does it sound like I'm on target to proper exposure? thanks again :)

so it seems the splotches are from excessive degraining, but does this original frame look overly grainy to you? underexposed? Shot with new Fuji 250T. I spot-metered her face at f2.8 so set aperature of camera at f2 I guess, it seems overly grainy to me which leads me to think I'm not underestimating my light when I shoot. ?

yes, I did degrain it. here's the original image, sorry. keep it comin, yalll. :)

sorry.... link: www.churchandtheology.org/panel/splotches

OK...so whenever I shoot some film stuff with my 16mm camera....I get these schplotches (dots, grainys?) in certain areas. attached is an image to show you what I mean. so whats my problem? this footage was done with brand new Fuji 250T and was just naturally lit by the grocery store lights. I spot-metered the woman's face at f2.8 so I set my camera on f2. as you can see, mostly the blurred background has what I'm speaking of, but there's some even on her arm. I had the transfer done BestLight with Colorlabs in Wash.D.C. put to Digibeta. help!!???!??!?!?

I've been doing most things with spot metering. I've heard that incedent light is always more accurate like you're probably mentioning, but in this case....how would you hold the incident light? facing it toward the camera would give me like f11 but if I face it toward the light it obviously jumps to like f22... so its like..am I measuring incidnt light always faced at the camera? so thats why I've kinda retreated to using spot metering mostly. give me feedback on professional usage of the incident light maybe. !:? and same with the spot. thanks

helpful, thanks. :) I just tell them best-light. shouldnt they realize whats best for the exposure made? isnt an exposed negative an exposed negative?

(see attached clip) its really tough to notice it with this tiny, compressed clip...but in the original uncomp footage there are serious moving grains in the brown table areas...I felt like exposure was good...so why is it that a lot of my 16mm footage gets that crap? and how can I eliminate it? little bitty moving dots, and its just in areas that are all one solid color usually. if its exposure than-- how could I have lit this better? shot with new Fuji250T exposed at f8: f16 for the hot point of the spotlight f8 for the dominos in the spot f4 for the dark shadows on table and f1.2 for the dark background (which was meant to be black) Fuji__250T.mov

helpful. :) still seems like my shooting is always slightly hazy or overexposed or something. maybe I should be lighting my scenes brighter in general to get all areas up to where I can just pull down the exposure in post. should I have chose 250T for the poolball context? as long as I light properly for the stock....shouldnt I get less grain by choosing the 250? or is the 500stocks really meant for those dark scenes? keep it comin yall very helpful

hypothetical scene: 2 pool balls are sitting on a table. room is completely black. there is one par can spotting from one side on one ball. shooting @ 24fps with lets say.....250Tungsten fuji film. meter readings: f16 on table in brightest point of spotlight f8 on well lit pool ball f4 on second pool ball not lit so well OK...the objective here is to get the nicest, evened out shoot possible where the well lit ball is the focal point. I would think you light for f8 because thats what your best light to be representing, right? or because of the DARK context here....would you push the f-stop closer to f5.6? any opinions on dark stuff like this, because whenever I light for dark things with my 16mm camera, it seems to always turn out a little greyish or overexposed maybe. REALLY, IN A NUTSHELL....I'M JUST LOOKING FOR LIGHTING TECHNIQUES. YOUR USUAL RITUAL FOR FINDING THE PERFECT EXPOSURE!? thnks

thanks Richard and Matt, that helps! :) keep it comin yall...

not to mention...if you're shooting with anything less than HD....you can forget about it looking even close to decent! i'd forget about it, just find a way to move the cars dude! YOU'LL BE ACTUALLY HAPPY IN THE END!