Jump to content

Jaron Berman

Basic Member
  • Posts

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jaron Berman

  1. PL Panchros in EF adapter are a no-go. Panchros sit deep into the mount, and the simple EF-PL adapters don't have enough depth to clear the shroud around the rear element on the panchros. The simple adapters work for telephoto lenses usually, and some zooms (old cooke, new Canon 17-120) that have very shallow baffling around the rear element. It is SOMETIMES possible to remove the baffling so the element can slide though the mount itself, sort of a hack, BUT that depends on how the rehousing. I have never seen a PL panchro that can be used on an EF adapter, but it may exist.
  2. There are tons of solutions for lighting the set in sync with a rolling shutter camera, but a lot fewer options when you want a press-pool full of practical flashes coming from the cameras themselves. Maybe I misunderstood the idea, but to see the flashes themselves coming from the cameras, it's worth at least testing tessive. And yes - 360 degree shutter/open shutter For lighting the set, another thing you may try would be small halogen pars (75w) on dmx dimmer packs - if you run a chase on the dimmer packs, the tungsten element should naturally work and still look fast enough to pass for a "flash." Whether something like a magic gadgets or a DMX solution, you should have plenty of control over the speed of the flickers (I prefer DMX because it's a lot cheaper and more flexible) - but a simple random flicker chase on a 6-ch dimmer pack should get the effect, and the tungsten filaments should feather the timing enough to appear realistic without tearing the frames.
  3. I have used this technique with other rolling shutter issues, but it will likely work fine for your purpose. Use real flashes as-is. Shoot 120fps/360 shutter and use software called RealD Truemotion. http://reald.com/#/truemotion Obviously test first, but it should work fine. With some cleverness you can do this even for sync-sound, but from your description you may not even need sound. Pretty impressive software, I just started using recently for rolling-shutter-prone situations. Instead of swapping to global cams, we use this trick and its been a lifesaver (but I haven't tried with a strobe situation)
  4. ng focus out less quickly than the zeiss. To my eye (someone more scientific with lenses could explain better) - the zeiss render more of a flat-field than the leica, meaning that the subject looks more cutout when the background is soft. I think that more than anything is the "modern" look - almost like a clean roto look. If you've seen tests of the new 85mm lenses on the EF mount market like the Otus, Sigma, and Sony GM - you'll see that look. Compared to a Leica R 80mm - it's very clear the difference, and I personally prefer the less abrupt transition on the Leica. But to each his/her own - and shooting the CP2's wide-open may do enough softening to make you happy?
  5. Well obviously it's all subjective. However, having owned the CP2's, leica R's, some speed panchros, etc etc.... I sold the CP2 because I found them to be too clean for my taste. Now, that's not saying they're razor-sharp and clinical, simply that for the projects I was doing they felt too neutral. Where there wasn't budget to rent the S4's, I wouldn't choose them over Rokinons from an optical perspective. I think the CP2 are a huge step above using canon EF still glass from a mechanical perspective absolutely, and they have beautiful round iris at all stops which looks fantastic. But wide-open (on the newer "super speed" versions) they fall apart in a way I don't find pleasing. Many of the zeiss designs do this - the Sonnars in particular are like "two lenses in one" where wide-open they look very vintage and closed down to t4-5.6 they look very sharp and modern. There are some standout lenses - the 21mm CP2 is gorgeous, and the 25mm is also decent. But in the "normal" range 32-35, 50, 80-85 - I think you'll find more character elsewhere. At the time they came out, there was nothing that could compete with the CP2 - interchangeable mounts, great mechanics, uniform front diameters, affordable price, full-frame coverage - what's not to like!? And they do look good, I was always happy with the image. Now I think you just have so many other options that may be more interesting in one direction or another. I think the rokinon xeen are great and have their own look. The schneider stuff is gorgeous and again - has its own look. And the leica r have a stunning way of rendering faces/skintones - I supplement my focal lengths with S4's when I need more range. For a time I owned both sets - cp2's and leicas as well as a funky old technovision-cooke zoom. I found myself using either the leicas or the cooke and leaving the zeiss on the shelf for long enough that I sold the CP's because if I were going for a very clean, sharp look - I'd rent ultras. Not that the leicas aren't sharp, they just have a way of knocki
  6. Check the OK GO music video that accompanies the muppet movie. They used ETC Desire D40 lights to do live color changes. Those lights were pretty cutting-edge, but now you can find that most decent RGBA or RGBWA lights can get the same effect and the same "snap" changes (or slower if you use different "dimmer curves.") Just make sure that when you do it, you know the EXACT pwm frequency of the lights - some of the cheaper lights actually use different pwm for each color making them impossible to use on certain rolling-shutter cameras (you could dial-out a shutter setting for some but not all color combinations). Some of the new Chauvet lights have adjustable PWM which is the future (in my opinion) because you can match to your frame rate. Just make sure to test the lights you choose before committing because there are surprises (Martin Mac Aura V1 are awful for inconsistent pwm freq. even though they are expensive and often installed at clubs, venues and music tours). good luck, it's a cool and "unreal" look
  7. I did the Van Diemen rehousing based on reading their patent (fascinating solution to me). Van diemen is a very very small company and they work slowly, and I managed to send my lenses in during a particularly busy/understaffed moment in their history which only made things slower. However, I think the quality of work they do is quite good. Now, unfortunately my lenses are back in the UK for mod to full-frame so I haven't really shot anything since going the route of rehousing (1.5yr so far). I received them and they needed some tuning, so back they went. Also note - I spent a long time tying to find a wide compliment super speed lens to match my leica lux 35,50,80 - and the closest optical match I found was actually the canon fd 24mm 1.4 - it's remarkably similar to the lux r's.... BUT it's FD mount which is incompatible with EF. On a full rehouse, this is a minor issue (and I'm hardly the only person having that lens added to the R super speed set). So there's on advantage to a rehoused set - you can make the set you want and (if it weren't already so similar) you CAN have the coatings adjusted - but that's rocket science that requires a lens designer's input that's definitely above what I'm able to pay on this set. In their old EF mount / duclos cinemod I will find some clips and post. There is no recoating, original coatings which is why it takes a while to assemble a good set. The stock mechanics on the leicas are quite good EXCEPT the iris. If you have the iris de-clicked it creeps. I had my set done by duclos and was happy except that feature, which was beyond frustrating. I'd suggest that if you go for R's, don't declick the iris unless you're doing a full rehousing. Way too frustrating to have your stop slip mid-shot. But the focus throw is quite smooth and relatively long for a still lens, so for a very reasonable price you're off to the races.
  8. The leica R primes are beautiful, took me about 2yr to assemble a good set and have them rehoused (that's another story). I went for them initially because of a little book called "A History of the Photographic Lens." I love the speed panchros and cook designs in general, but you can't put the Panchros on a EF mount camera. What you can do is put the Leica R on an EF mount camera and, because most of the R's are based on the same optical design as the Panchros - achieve a similar look. Obviously coatings and mechanics are very different, BUT a lot of the optical attributes are VERY similar (very difficult to tell apart in some lens side-by-sides). Now there are aliens in the mix - the Summilux-R 35mm is a unique design (I'm sure others with more knowledge could point to ancestors and offspring of that lens), but for the most part they are all of common lineage. So, when people wax poetic about the glow of cooke, the creaminess of leica, or the beauty of panavision primo glass - some (obviously simplifying here) of that beauty is attributable to the fact that they're all descendants of the same optical formulas. as for flare, that will depend on coatings
  9. try Chamsys - it's a VERY fully featured DMX control system that can be used without limitations free - you pay to get more buttons. You can use a very wide variety of USB or Ethernet DMX adapters - but it's all based on their software. The software itself is available for mac, pc and linux and can be scripted. There are a few ways to control it, but SSH works and I think Telnet as well. You may have to dedicate a PC to use as the "controller" but you should be able to SSH into it remotely. There's a possibility you may not even need a separate PC to do that - they have a lot of network features you can access between applications on the same PC (their implementation of multi displays does this) - so you may be in luck. Download the manual - it has pretty good instructions. I have 2 of their boards and love their software, haven't used anything as compact/fully featured for anywhere near the price.
  10. What do you mean by 35mm frame? 35mm still? s35? For super 35 frame (most d-cinema cameras, 7d, etc), 16:9 HDTV, its about 24' on a 50mm For 35mm still frame (like 5d), it's about 16'
  11. You're in the PERFECT situation to use something like the C100. B/W is cool because you're not dealing with issues of color fidelity, color noise, color spaces - any filtration on the camera is to achieve varying tonal changes to the image. C100 seems to really fit the bill, I think that's an excellent choice as its noise is quite pleasing even in color - and looks GORGEOUS in B&W. Yeah, I actually like the noise off that chip (in the c300/500) enough to shoot higher-iso on purpose. But B&W frees you from the whole 4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4, "raw" mess - all you care about is luminance and noise and that chip handles both very nicely. With the limited budget and the philosophy to use as much natural light as possible - have fun with it and OWN it, make it a rule - choose to bring no lights, but a fair amount of grip. Shape what's there, block out windows, turn lamps on/off and fly in flags for negative fill - the C100 can dig into shadows quite nicely, you won't be hurting for light level so instead of adding more - try shaping what's there with bouncing and flagging. Lens-wise the Rokinons look quite nice but are difficult to use, as the focus helix has no logic to it - they jump focus scales.... for fixed lock-offs, fine... for movement they can be even more difficult than even a Canon still zoom without true manual focus - I know, sounds crazy but it's true. Use them for sure, but also see if you can get a canon 24-105mm (NOT 24-70, it's junk for video) for handheld, it's a good inexpensive zoom that's sharp and holds focus mostly through the range, and the focus throw is predictable. Have fun, sounds like a good time.
  12. yep, easy to build and prone to failure as those ribbons aren't terribly robust for multiple flexes. It's a good idea that needs quite a bit more development - I've built plenty of them, and they work great for a while, till the solder lifts or the LED's fall off.
  13. I used it briefly and paid a lot for the experiment but found the interface way too slow and clunky for any real work. It's a very cool proof of concept, and a simple way (once set) to hand off the "board" to someone with no experience and let them punch-up looks you made. But it's far too slow to do any serious programming, and the limitations of the way it deals with high-channel count fixtures are immediately apparent. It did, however, turn me on to the possibilities of automated lighting, RGBW led fixtures, etc - and using a more robust controller, I'm doing a lot of the same stuff now but a lot easier and more reliably. Chamsys Magicq - awesome software, excellent hardware, great support and their head personality files are updated daily. Initially, with Luminair I was trying to use something I already had and gaff-tape solutions to it to make it work (metaphorically and literally). When I stepped to MagicQ, I did it backwards - the goal was lighting control, using this software, needing both USB and WIFI to link to artnet or the Chamsys wing - now what hardware device gets me there? After a lot of trial and error, I ended up with a Lenovo Tablet 2 - full size usb, touch screen with digitizer, and plenty powerful to run MagicQ with or without the fader wing. It looks and feels like an iPad, but MagicQ is infinitely faster and more powerful (and also expandable...and also cheaper). Worth looking into - because you can use it like Luminair (and using the same Enttec ODE box), or you can use it with a PC Wing for real faders and encoders - and it's the same software that runs their full desks so there's no learning curve. I haven't touched Luminair since discovering MagicQ - its just better in every single way. After that shill, storing it conveniently... I velcro'd the airport express and the ODE power supply to the top of the ODE, and made a little zip-wire stinger that connects the two on one plug. Literally - plug it in, WIFI DMX is available. All fits in a tiny pelican, but with the velcro - it's a nice compact and robust little package.... though you get some TERRIFIED looks from people when you pull it out - looks pretty sketchy... wouldn't wanna go through TSA with it.
  14. If you're shooting outdoors, only the Diva will do anything for you in terms of any kind of power in daylight balance, but even still it would have to be very close (and ugly). Skip lighting and grip the shot - luckily you can do some trickery on the cheap with grip. Outdoors you're not hurting to get light level, no need to add more, it's more controlling what's there - look at the shadows from his collar and facial structure and you can see where the light is coming from (and where it isn't). Figure out where your strongest source has to be and block your shot so you get it for free from the sun. Then shape from there - softening, flagging and bouncing. There's a pretty strong bounce and some kind of negative on here (natural or grip-made). Relatively easy shot if you think about where the sun is, and where the bounce is (you can see the color shift from the bounce, which gives away the color of the bounce itself). Skin can be very reflective and specular, so you can see a lot of clues about the color of instruments, and it can also be very matte and shadow-receiving so you can figure out the direction if you look closely at where the shadows fall and what causes them.
  15. What rigging do you have access to? If you can get an EVF, you're set. If not, it's doable but more difficult. Honestly, good handheld will ALWAYS look better than EZ-rig and 10,000 x always better than bad steadicam. Smoother in handheld is a function of your skill, just as accurate is in steadicam. If you can build your camera to sit on your shoulder balanced, where you can operate all necessary functions then you're 100% there in terms of the gear. The rest is knowing what you want, and keeping both eyes open to anticipate. You'll see lots of people with photos of tricked-out blingy rigs that, in the end, do nothing more for their shots than impress people who don't know better. Avoid the temptation to bolt/velcro/tape crap to the camera unless you need to. And there is NO universal setup - if you're handheld, build it so YOU are comfortable doing handheld. If you're on sticks, build it for that. If you're back and forth all day, figure out the compromise that works best for whichever situation you're doing more of. Are you pulling your own focus? If so, and if you're not using cinema lenses - try pulling focus off the lens, not off a follow focus. On the cheap/simple end - the gears and FF's are junk and less accurate than your hand on the barrel. If someone else is pulling for you - only THEN add that stuff and the onboard monitors, etc… -> it's on YOUR shoulder, so carry as little extra crap as necessary to do the job. You'll NEVER see A-list hollywood cam ops with studio matte boxes for handheld, and they have the luxury of whatever they want for the shot. Try the lens hood that comes with the lens - and gaff-tape mattes to it if necessary if you're having flare issues. If you're using filters, try to get screw-on's for your lenses to save weight. Make your life easier, keep the rig light and balanced and you'll find that it becomes an extension of you - and if you can walk with your shoulders level, the shot will be smooth.
  16. Ain't reality fun!? Posture is the biggest thing, there's no trick to making it more fun to shoot insanely long takes. Luckily the 900 is only a 33 minute load - when they discover you can roll 3 hr straight on a C300 (loaded with all the same fun toys), that gets REALLY fun. The other thing is being proactive, if you don't ASK for a break every so often they won't give it to you. In reality you're dealing with producers over a very huge range of experience levels, though you'll only find 1 every 10 years or so who has ever ACTUALLY operated for more than a shot. A lot of times people will say "oh yeah, I've shot, I know how heavy that is," but unless they've done what you do EVERY DAY they have no idea and they could care less. Stretch between tape changes, never carry the camera with your right hand when you're not shooting, hand it off when possible. All producers have war stories of how "the op on my last show" - but again, you're not that op and it pays to make them see you as a human vs. a button punching monkey. Most people big and small can hold that much weight for a while, most people can even walk around with it. You need to advocate for yourself. There's no cross-training for this stuff and what your producers may forget is that it's not just carrying that weight - it's doing your actual job (and usually theirs too) on TOP of carrying that weight. Reality is a specialized set of skills for ops, and I know I'm saying it over and over in different ways but respect is the biggest way to save yourself and prolong your career. There are plenty of prod. companies (495 ahem cough, food network) who pride themselves in how long they force ops to be shouldered up - for the people sitting in video village street cred is won by the ridiculous things they make you do. The more you can get them on your side, the less you'll shoot extraneous stuff and the more it can be collaborative. You're closest to the action as in any type of production, and good reality ops know exactly the story at all times (how else can you anticipate your next shot?) - when producers learn to trust your instincts and rely on you, seeing you as a collaborator not a servant then your takes get shorter. Yes, there's the time when it's REALLY necessary to shoot 3 tapes/discs straight, but it's rare, and that's when the conditioning kicks in. When you're scanning your finder, include a "self" scan - make sure you're not death gripping the camera and you'll be a lot steadier and also just note your posture. It's a good mantra to tell yourself to stand straight! (Learned that one from steadicam). 43min into a disc holding a shot on the long end of a 22x this is important! If you got into a weird position to snap a quick shot - make it quick. If it ends up being a longer beat, then get yourself into a good (safe) position - even if it means asking for a second. ASK. And drink stupid amounts of water. As for E-Z rig….. 99% of people who use them do so incorrectly, have less control over the camera, less mobility, more setup time and generally ADD weight to their bodies vs. stripping the camera. Yes, I've known 3 specific times when it was the right tool, but if you're looking to improve handheld comfort then improve handheld comfort, don't throw more crap at it. Treat the issue itself, stand straight and use the tape changes as mini breaks - if you're stretching and drinking a water even the worst producers will say, "when you're done getting some water that can you get me……" - use that time, it's yours.
  17. It's about 2lb with the battery, very lightweight and easy to mount for something like a body rig. There's a wireless WIFI transmitter for the camera that, with Canon EF lenses can give you slow (but usable) follow focus control. That's a pretty good setup for "super lightweight" because you don't need a baseplate, rods, focus motor, focus receiver, and you can use any of the lightweight canon EF lenses - so your total weight will be about 3 lb of camera package (incl. lens). The CP.2 are great lenses - but for a body rig probably overkill in terms of weight. As for matching - the C300 has more real-world exposure latitude and better real-world color response than the RED MX, so to match them it's probably easiest to shoot a chart and some skintone on the MX and take those images all the way through your post pipeline giving it the look you want, then matching the Canon to that (as much in camera as possible). Otherwise, just shoot it in "cine locked" and match in post, it'll be pretty easy and close.
  18. Sadly, especially in reality this is so common it's basically expected. And because it's "reality" in general you will have zero time or budget to do it safely, not to mention well. That said, it seems you know ahead of time that 1) it's happening and 2) what camera you're supposed to use so hey - that's something! Most reality shows carry a smaller camera for such situations because let's face it - the weight of an F800 isn't bad, it's the fact that with the lens, brick, hops, etc etc etc the camera is about 3' long head to tail. I've done it countless times, and actually started putting in my deal memo "absolutely no car interiors" because it sucks so bad. The is no way to sit in a car with the cam on your shoulder and not cause yourself physical pain, not with an eng camera. Because the height of the handle, it'll hit the headliner of the car and all the effort you put in to steady it and smooth out the car's movements with your body will be null - you'll be bouncing around hitting the headrests, windshield and ceiling. And in general, reality producers picture in their minds shots from movies that were done on process trailers. Safely. With time to rig and consider safety. Usually they;re not picturing the lens 9" from the driver's face (where it'll be when you're backed against the window) bouncing around like crazy in profile and far below eyeline. :) SO.... it's a good idea to temper expectations immediately about what the shot will ACTUALLY look like handheld from the passenger seat on the shoulder. When you begin the conversation with content discussions, you have more ability to collaborate on reasonable solutions than if you start with "my leg will go numb after about 8 minutes and then I'll start yelling obscenities every time the camera smacks me in the head." That falls on deaf ears in most cases. If you're able to get a small cam that more or less matches your primary, one thing I've done a lot of (because again - this happens in a "hurry we need to follow this" sort of fashion) is to buy a couple bags of uncooked rice and a thick ziplock bag. Basically an adjustable cinesaddle - set the cam on the dash and jam it as far towards the windshield as possible and hold one bag aganst the dash under it - like a wedge - and if you can put the other bag on top. If you keep pressure forward, it'll essentially lock to the motions of the vehicle which eliminates camera shake because the driver's seat and the dash/windshield should all be bumping/vibrating together. But this requires a small camera with some kind of LCD you can rotate towards yourself - or put a small LCD in your lap and cable it to the cam. The advantage of doing it this way is that 1) you're sitting in the seat the way it was designed so your limbs don't go numb and your back isn't hunched the whole time 2) the camera is a LOT farther forward and more frontal on the driver - and if it's too frontal you can slide it out toward the passenger door - but you have CONTROL over the angel 3) the footage is usable because you're not bouncing around like crazy or yelling obscenities over the audio Again - if you explain that more of the footage will be usable and you can shoot for longer - you can win most arguments for getting gear thats closer to the correct tool for the job. And if you can't, and you're forced to use the 800, at least get a battery plate w/ 4-pin xlr and long audio cables so you can drop all that stuff on the floor and make the camera 6" shorter. The difference in DOF between being really close and wide on the normal cam and being 3x as far away on a longer lens with the smaller chip cam is a wash. Good luck and whatever you figure out, keep it in your bag of tricks because this is a daily thing in reality. Somehow.
  19. I use it often, it works and its a good idea, but not perfectly thought out. Because of the dimensions of the C300, you can't get the rods to line up correctly for non-adjustable matteboxes, etc... Also, for some reason, the camera ends up being WAY out forward and super front heavy even with relatively heavy bricks on the back end. The finish quality looks nice, but in their structuring of the piece, where the shoulder pad mounts is recessed between "webs" of metal which are particularly sharp and dig into your shoulder unless you have it perfectly lined-up on your body....impossible because the camera sits so far forward. It's also VERY slow to break off the camera if you want to shrink dimensions for getting into a vehicle, etc... The shape rig ends up being HUGE. And to balance it, it's about 3' long with a zoom. My suggestion - the Arri baseplate is excellent, VERY well designed and cheaper. Add the portabrace pad (SP-3G) and you have a fast and flexible setup that lets you position the pad where you want it or lose it instantly. Build the camera and just put the pad on the rods under it wherever that balance point needs to be. Easy, no sharp edges, no extra weight.
  20. The one thing nobody mentioned is lens flexibility. I've shot a number of docs, and yes - the large-chip (dslr-style) look is beautiful and "high-end" but it's FAR more difficult to do well in a verite situation. Ask any operator who's shot a full-on verite piece on a DSLR or even a true large-sensor camera like an F3/F5 or C300 or Alexa - it ain't easy! If you get past the immediate drawback of DSLR's - not being able to even reliably tell when you're in focus, then you're still left with the biggest drawback of ANY 35mm-style camera.... lens range. With "video" (referring to 1/3", 1/2" or 2/3" sensors) 20x, 22x, or 13x wide lenses are common and on many prosumer cams they're built-in. What that means is that when you're covering a group of people, you have the ability to frame a wide shot and then snap in to faces when things happen. On a DSLR that range simply does not exist. You could rent an optimo 24-290mm lens, get an adapter and use it with your DSLR but even then you only have a 12x lens and the rig weighs 27lbs! So doom and gloom aside, how can it be done in real life? 1) Get a video camera. Even the sony/panasonic/canon handicams have 1/3" chips, 20x optical zooms, excellent stabilization and full manual control. They can all take audio inputs and have excellent image quality. I have plenty of footage from my sony and panasonic handicams on national television, all the time. Or stretch your budget and get something used and tape-based, HDV (like the Sony Z5, it's great when there's a lot of light). 2) Get a DSLR that's GOOD for video, such as a Panasonic GH2/3 or Sony Nex 6 - either will allow options with zoom lenses and the Sony has focus peaking - CRITICAL and reliable for knowing you're in focus. I've used both on national television too, both work very well. 3) Get a DSLR with a video body like the Sony NEX VG30 - never used it but it looks like a rehoused NEX6, so whether the price jump is worth it....your call - I'd save the cash for a good lens and support Drawbacks and workarounds: 1) Low light - on any 1/3" cam, low light will suck plain and simple. Depending on your subject this may or may not be an issue. Some of the best and most entertaining docs are grainy, low saturation and somewhat ugly - but the subject matter is so compelling it doesn't matter. When I started photography, I worked as a photojournalist and in the advent of digital we all tried VERY hard to minimize noise and banding in our images. In a critical play in a critical football game, I was the only guy of all the shooters in the right spot. I hammered away and "got it," with a super low ISO expecting the shot to be beautiful. When I got into the press room to edit, every one of my shots was motion blurred. No noise, tons of blur and hence unusable. Another guy was far away and high ISO but his shot ran on the wires as the shot of the game because unlike me - he got the moment. Moral: we can obsess over quality and pixel peep till we're blind in one eye but NONE of that matters if you miss the moment. In a documentary, which would you rather - pretty shots with shallow depth of field and miss all the good moments - or capture the moments gritty but real? 2) Drawbacks of DSLR are too numerous to mention, but ergonomics top the list. You'll need some kind of way to balance the cam and eliminate your movements from the shot - shoulder rigs work well when counterbalanced but they make the cam grow. You need a way to monitor focus - Sony has peaking on their DSLR, panasonic has a full rez output on the HDMI and can use a monitor. But then you need a monitor. So now, how do you get around the issue of lens range? You move your body. A LOT. I shot 3 docs recently using the Canon C300 and personally I found the compromise to be worth it. I used a canon 24-105 for most coverage, it's a great range... and a sigma 50-150mm for scenes involving 1-2 people. I had to run a LOT to keep good coverage, and that's the report I hear from all the others I know who have attempted verite on large-sensor cameras. Essentially you need to know the exact limitations of your gear and use them as creative constraints. Know them well, test everything so that when you get into that situation where a critical moment is happening and you physically can't get closer and are stuck on a wide-ish lens - you have to know a solution. 3) These cameras generally come bundled with superzoom kit lenses which attempt to bridge the gap between 1/3" video and DSLR - the zooms themselves at f/5.6 combined with the clean sensor basically equate to the same sensitivity as the 1/3" handicams, BUT one advantage is if you're doing B-roll or interviews or any "controlled" scenes, you can snap on a faster lens and achieve the shallow DOF look without switching camera systems. This applies to DSLR too, but my understanding is that the video-body dslr do a better job of maintaining f-stop on the superzoom lenses, so they work better in run-n-gun situations.
  21. There's something to be said for working for other people. Yes, people go to film school and successfully transition immediately to their chosen career. But it's rare, and it's not always the most "well rounded" approach. Watching a lot of final products, like you said, doesn't mean you know a lot about how things work on set. And even in an academic environment, it doesn't always reflect a professional set. I'm not referring to technical details or knowledge even - there are plenty of students who know more than old dogs, and there are plenty of schools with better gear than most productions. But there's a lot of nuance to how things "politic" on a real set that depends on budget and personality. The more personalities you work with and for, the better you develop your own style. And maybe before deciding to go back to school, try getting on set for bigger or smaller productions than you're accustomed to. Every director has a different style, and even if you never want to direct it's still priceless to feel that leadership first-hand. Maybe you take away one or two things from each production, but it all adds up be it "I would NEVER" or "I really love the way" - positive or negative, you learn a lot about real-world production from real-world production. I've worked with brilliant adversarial directors and also clueless though slick and friendly directors. And from either I learn different things about my own role in the grander picture. You mentioned that you don't love reading scripts - but in the end even if the director chooses to throw out a lot of what's there, it's still a guideline for the underlying story. And in the end - that's what we do. We tell stories, even down to the PA's - all part of the machinery, all on the same team. And any time it gets tough on set I try to remind myself of that - we're all on the same team and in the end we're trying to tell a good story. I think a lot of "big" directors/dp's/writers/actors enjoy the refreshing feel of indi production from time to time for that very reason (some great interviews with Coppola ) - when the production is small it's easier for EVERY person to feel some ownership and hence pride in the project at every turn. I agree with those who say to just go out and shoot something, it's a great experience. But so is working for lots of other people - it all helps to develop your own passion. The benefit of school is that you get to do both.
  22. It's called a crane step-off, and its common enough to be taught at steadicam workshops. That said, it's not particularly easy and you'll find only a handfull of ops who have done them on shot (successfully) because of the logistical complications. The issue of the step-off itself is fairly easy, certainly easier than holding a shot while going up or down stairs. But there's a big dance in order to do it safely, and of more concern than which op you choose to hire is the experience of the grips. Given the choice between an op who's done a step-off and 3 grips who have done them (successfully) I'd take the grips EVERY time. Simple physics Force = Mass x Acceleration - when the operator steps off the crane, it's now imbalanced meaning that 50' lever wants to spring upwards with a LOT of force. When the op steps off 3 things need to happen - two grips need to land the platform, one of them has to un-safety the operator (when he/she confirms that both grips have weight on the platform, and then signal the OK. If this doesn't happen, it's incredibly dangerous. If this all happens smoothly then everyone looks like a hero and you end up with what could be a very cool shot. It's ok the land the platform hard to the ground because it's a lot better to KNOW that you're at the ground than to have the grips feather the move and land 5" high and have a faceplant when the op steps off. The beauty of the steadicam arm is that the op can feather the landing, booming the rig itself down as the crane comes to rest and soaking-up the landing - the rig itself never stops moving and therefore never loses inertia or stability. Beautiful clean step-off in Hoffa, and a few very clever step-offs in Kill Bill (so good most people have no idea how the shots were done at all). If money is not an issue, find a few good examples and try getting a hold of those ops, and be open to bringing in grips they trust. And when you diagram the shot, having done a few similarly ambitious shots they may even have ideas to help make it better (and safer). Good luck, sounds like a fun project!
  23. I have a good buddy who struggled for about 10yr as an editorial photographer. He'd work good magazine gigs every month, but the majority of his income came from assisting commercial photogs. Oftentimes, as I'm sure you know - in the commercial world the photographer is more of a shmoozer, grand ideas sort of person. The assistant builds the rig, sets and tests the camera and presents it ready to shoot based on reference images the photog gave earlier. Essentially, the photo assistant acts as DP and AC, the photographer as Director. When the 5D II came out, my buddy wanted to shoot a couple bizarre shorts - 1 min max, just to play around. He understood nothing of continuity at the time - just a vision of what sort of final product he wanted. I DP'd for him 3 projects, and another guy DP'd 2. His agent took those 5 minutes of footage and booked him a huge ad campaign - as Director. At first he felt like he should be called the "DP" but realized rather quickly that the translation from commercial photographer in our world really is Director. He's been doing it since, quite successfully, working all the time. So yes, perhaps the most natural translation is director - but it can't hurt to learn anything and everything you can about the various elements of filmmaking to enhance your abilities as a director. There's a world of difference between lighting a still image and lighting a space that actors can move through in 3d, and maybe that is or is not your passion? But knowing what you want in an image - visually and emotionally - is the directing half of the battle - the Cinematographer is the bridge between that idea and the screen. Not to say that cinematography isn't creative, just that you have options in terms of how much or what responsibility to take.
  24. Off the shelf: http://www.milwaukee...er-port/2349-20 use 12v milwaukee batteries and any of this type of cable: http://www.bhphotovi..._Cigarette.html Done. I believe the "3A regulated" is on the usb port, the 12v port should be totally unregulated. If not, its pretty easy to just open it up and remove the regulator so it's accessing the battery directly - and using something like this means minimal gaff tape - nice and clean.
  25. Balance and practice. Personally I despise the easyrig, but I'm sure there are tons of people who love them. For most of the guys I work with, it's about balancing the camera...and weight actually does help stabilize. If the camera is not balanced on your shoulder, no matter how smoothly you try to walk, you'll be fighting yourself and the natural tendencies of the camera - you're balancing both your own body and the camera separately. If the camera basically sits naturally on your shoulder, then it's "part" of you and you worry only about smoothing your own movements. It seems counterintuitive, but the LESS you can push/pull/muscle the camera to hold a frame, the more steady it will be. Its pretty common in the doc/reality world to live at the end of a 13x lens (equiv about 150mm in C300 terms) while moving....and often sneak CU's at the end of a 22x (equiv about 420mm in c300 terms) while stationary. Handheld. And it's common to be expected to do this for hours on end if the content necessitates it. We love to be human tripods apparently. The key to staying alive is the same as the key to making the shot usable - relax. The more you can relax your body the less fatigue and strain - you're trying to only use the smallest inputs and muscles. And that includes your brain - don't stress about the mechanics of being stable - just look through the finder and worry about framing... use your inner chicken-sense (awesome youtibe video of chicken head stabilization). You'll notice too that as a viewer - when you watch footage you get the same tunnel vision as a viewer that you get shooting - you concentrate on the object of interest. If you're leading a character (walking backward, shooting them walking forward), if you move roughly the same as them, the viewer will naturally forgive a lot of frame movement because they're concentrating on the character, not necessarily the background movement. Do the same shot without anyone in frame and it may look like a drunken Bourne op. One trick to this is stepping with the same side foot as them...i.e. if you're leading a character and he/she steps on his/her right foot first, you step with your left foot first - it's eery how smooth this makes the frame seem, because you're bouncing up and down WITH them, not against them. One thing that I learned from steadicam - try not to land flat-footed. You want to get in a habit of landing on one foot or the other. Let's say you do 3 takes, and on take 4 the actor lands 4" off their mark and you hit yours - now it's a bad frame somehow (lamp growing from their head, flare, anything) - you need to truck yourself one way in order to clean it up. If you're flat-footed that means shifting your hips before you step - which looks very obvious. Stand in a mirror and watch your shoulders - flat footed now take a step sideways. Do the same starting with your weight on one foot. Shoulders stay a lot more in plane. Land on one foot and you have more options in terms of moving without bumping the camera up and down. But really - balance the camera and shoot. You'll be fine.
×
×
  • Create New...