Kristoffer Newsom

I'm looking for an effective and affordable solution - primarily for Post, but if it was small enough for an indie set video village, that'd be dandy. Any suggestions? :huh:

I'm inclined to think that if the blue channel was that chewed up and soft, the green channel will be much the same. Having second thoughts now on the staying power of the Red One as a high end production tool - with noisy color channels, that really limits what one can do with the footage in post production, and today's filmmaking process is HIGHLY dependent on flexibility in post.

I've actually been wondering if the Red One will eventually find use as a Studio News camera, due to it's HDSDI output and relatively low cost while functioning with a wide variety of lenses. I know it seems like overkill, but you should see how much news stations pay for stuff like studio cameras for the image quality the produce!

....CML?

I find that often the true test of a camera is not how great the footage looks - that's usually the great test of a cinematographer. For me, it's more about selective color correction and compositing that reveal the truth about a camera's functionality and practical application. I've seen lots of incredible footage from the Red One... But not a single bloomin' FX shot. Has anyone had any experience trying to push the envelope so to speak with footage aquired on a Red? Any blue/greenscreen? any selective color saturation/desaturation? Thanks.

I'd also suggest trying to light the scene with the overheads off. If you need the ambient light to go up, turn them on, and then use CTB and HMI's on your subjects. good luck. -Kris

I also typically don't worry too much about practicals - if they're drawing focus from the talent, typically, I'll gel them with some ND. Remember: the eye is usually drawn to the hottest part of the frame. Also keep in mind "point of focus", and try to keep your composition so that the eye is looking at the same part of the frame when your editor cuts things together - that'll make it easier on them, and it'll also ensure that the audience isn't drifting off to look at what you don't want them to look at. Good luck. -Kris

hey all, I've heard people mention that the HVX200 has a USB2 port, but I read on the panasoninc website that it has a FW port. ...does this mean it'll be possible to capture directly to disk while shooting? I think the data rate may be a bit too high with some configurations, but with say, 720P, 24fps, would this be possible? cheers, Kris

I saw a pretty schweet music video that was shot with a Scoopic posted in a K3 thread, and wanted to extend a high five to whoever it was who shot that, but I'd also like to inquire as to the camera's pro's and cons. What I KNOW: only one lens, no changin' it (but it's a pretty damned nice lens). no such thing as an extended mag (daylight spools only, but they're quick to change). in-camera battery, exchangeable. what I DON'T KNOW: is it possible to convert to S16? Is it possible to go crystal sync? or MOS only? Will lens extensions for the Canon GL1 and 2 such as the wide angle adapter and zoom lens screw onto the scoopic lens? (eyeballed they look to be the same size) Will an eyepiece tap work with this camera? ...that's about it. thanks folks, Kris

Yousef, WOW, what a question. I'm afraid there's no simple answer, and of course, what you do is ultimately your sole decision. What I can do is give you some of my thoughts on the matter: Directing a film (or even just SHOOTING films) is one of the most challenging things you can do, artistically, logistically, physically, mentally, etc. When you're trying to actualize a vision of yours, especially an ambitious one, mistakes are difficult enough to bear without being out thousands of dollars. I think it's important to learn the process of shooting on film, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, to learn the process of assembling a narrative structure, and working with actors. Just the other day I was thanking my lucky stars that I went to Humboldt State University for film school instead of AFI or Academy of Arts, or NYU, or any of the big schools, because, having seen a lot of their films (and just recently working on one), I realized that these folks are learning some EXPENSIVE LESSONS. Shoot 16mm black and white reversal (and then negative) 100' at a time until you get a real grip on pacing, movement, composition, lighting, contrast ratios, etc. before you go to sync sound, color, S16, and all the other expense eating methods of film making. If you're on a budget, don't blow 10 grand on your first film! Buy a Bolex, or a K3, or an Arri-S; have some fun, make 1 and 2 minute films. Edit by hand and project with grandpa's old projector. It's FUN, and it'll open the world up to you one piece at a time, helping you avoid being overwhelmed. Also, keep workin on video - that'll help you get a grip on longer projects, as well as dialogue. After a year or two and 15 or 20 short films, you'll want to move on, and I'm sure you will - but by that time, you'll have the confidence and the skills to do so. ...cross the bridge of whether or not to buy an Arri SR2 then. ON THE OTHER HAND: Film cameras have very stable values. They're not like video cameras, which drop unbelievably fast. A super16 camera will tend to maintain value, and it may be possible to sell it for nearly as much as you paid for it. (and if you've modified it, probably more). So that's the other end of it, but I say that until you're ready to drop bux like that on an investment of that caliber, take some more baby steps. -Kris

Hey Folks, I'm going to be doing some aerial cinematography of San Francisco here pretty soon, either with an Arri SR, or an Aaton, or a Bolex. We're doing a test shoot on Sunday, and I had some questions for folks who have had experience with aerial shoots (I myself have no experience shooting motion picture footage from a moving aircraft). Here's the dilemma: Will a heavier camera (ie the Arriflex, or as I like to call it, the Beariflex) iron out more minor shakes and shimmies that might get translated through with a lighter camera like the Aaton or the Bolex? Second big question: Will underclocking it a bit (like say shooting 10 or 15fps) also iron out minor bumps and make the image seem a bit smoother as well as faster? We're not using a harness or anything like that, so we're shooting from INSIDE the Cessna, with the window removed, the tripod sandbaged to the plane, using a Zeiss variable zoom lens. I WANT to use a 25mm cook prime, but that might not happen. Stock is Kodak 500T. third question: since we're shooting at night/in the evening, what filter can I use to even out the lights and contrast of the image a bit? or would it be best to not use a filter at all (that's what my intuition is telling me, but like I said, I've never done aerial before). Thanks for any advice you folks might have in advance! -Kris

*phew* good luck on this one. I too, would reccomend not pushing more than 2 stops, especially if you want to maintain decent contrast in the image. What I would suggest would be to replace your practicals with brighter lights. (difficult, true, but if you could do it, it'd really pay off). On a foggy evening, brighter practicals would blow out, and greatly increase ambient light. If it's not so foggy, a fog filter could help. Another way to help blow the lights out a bit would be to shoot at 18fps, then optically print up, of course. Finally, if you can't get brighter practicals, you could shoot, get what you get, and bring it into final cut pro, then run 3-way color correction on the shot, increasing the values of the highlights. ...that's probably what I would do, if I was planning to finish on video.

...not sure if there's something behind the glass, I would bet on it being underneath the light, just within sight, but not inbetween the light and the windows (probably with a separate light just to illuminate the white background). If you look at the shadows on the floor, they're a LITTLE diffused, but still, there are some hard edges. If he used a net, it must have been a THIN one, IMHO.

I'm pretty sure it was a higher angle than just out of sight... look at the shadow of the table on the floor. I think the only fill was natural bounce off the body, table and floor, and that the image was exposed for the talent's face recieving the bounce off the floor and the rest of the room, but with no direct light on it. Since much of the light was diffused in reflection, there was probably a 3 or 4 stop (possibly more) difference between his face and an area of direct exposure to the light. I'd imagine that the color was done in digital post production, and that some of the contrasty feel of it was accentuated in digital intermediate as well, but I could be wrong. The floors' diffusion I would attribute to over-exposure, obviously what they wanted. ...this is all IMHO, in any case. -Kris