Jump to content

Vincent Sweeney

Premium Member
  • Posts

    709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vincent Sweeney

  1. I think you have to include production design/costumes in this as a major contributor to that look. What we just did on "Plan 9" could be considered today's version of what you are talking about. The crew size and budget was likely very much like Chainsaw's was in the '70's, but the new 16mm camera is now an F3 or AF100. Though if they had a 35mm camera back then, would it really be that different?
  2. I doubt you need to know more than this: If you want to compose your film to fully fill out a modern TV or movie screen, then shoot 16:9, which all HD cameras do natively, which is very close to a ratio of 1.85:1 which is the full theater screen ratio. If you want the super widescreen look, then you compose it in 2.4:1. This is what you see when you see the black bars on the top and bottom on an HD TV. In a theater, the curtains will form a more rectangle or wider looking ratio for movies shot in 2.4:1. There's little to worry about other than that; 2.4:1 or 1.85:1... your choice. Tell your DP which you like, he might have an opinion too, then pick it. Let him worry about dealing with it technically.
  3. I have seen lots of it over time but was purposely avoiding it since a few years ago when this idea was told to me. Yes there happens to be, by crazy chance, a one-man production business a few miles from the location that has an F3 and KiPro for rent as of last month. I'll just bring one of the primes from LA with me (the 35mm) and will be all set to finish it up. I think they only need about $6k at this point.
  4. It isn't the kind of thing that I can tolerate watching but I continue to find that video look pretty often with any digital camera and why I still don't trust them for lots of situations. As far as why it happens sometimes and other times not is a mystery that no one has ever answered. I just saw the last Harry Potter tonight at a theater... talk about why film needs to have a LONG life! Amazing looking with perfect color, like usual.
  5. Interesting. Yeah my subscription got really screwed up... still waiting on the last two months!
  6. If anyone has seen Martha Marcy May Marlene I'm curious as to what you think went wrong here? The print I saw had severe black level issues in lots of shots. While the DP did a good job, Im wondering if having to protect the highlights as much as he did overall led to losing too much info in the shadows? That seems too simple of an explanation though. The online trailer also shows this problem in a couple shots. Namely the target shooting scene. Several shots are ruined and I wasn't trying to pick it apart or go into viewing it to watch the camera work. The film is pretty well done in my opinion, although it could be cut down a few more minutes easily.
  7. How we lit a parking lot at night with our biggest pieces of gear. Sorry for any grip etiquette issues you may spot. PA's were setting lights half the time.
  8. Well there wasn't any discussion about trying to look like anything else and the original didn't play into this film, as far as looks/lighting goes. I purposely didn't even watch the original just to help keep things clean. We did do one or two shots with similar framing/feel however, but when you can't really build sets or plan locations, even trying to make one or two shots look like something else is rarely possible or practical. I think we did this film in a similar way that Ed and crew would have done it if they were working these days. While maybe not being baptized for it, I think the director basically went through similar enough circumstances to get the little bit of money we did have. The words "I have sold my soul" were heard more than once! While we are not really following the original story or scenes very closely, we did do some airplane stuff. We shot the plane scenes as basic as possible. We found someone who owned an old one and shot it sitting on a rural runway. I crammed myself onto the wing with a cinesaddle and apple box, shooting the two actors through the doorway. i had to use the 24mm to fit both actors into the same shot and tried to close down to keep both in focus. It was stupidly tight/crammed. The trees and skyline that were visible through the windows is all being "CGI'ed". I was going to put up some green screen but was told it wasn't needed anymore for these kinds of shots. I also did a couple of experiments with a small jib for establishing the plane in the air (wides): I used the 24mm again and got in front of the plane and moved the camera up over the nose to give a sense of a "high-budget" move. ;) Removing the background will be tough though I would think. I did some shots like that from the sides as well. I am very curious to see how that comes out. That jib's brand badge was changed by someone and I didn't notice till late in the shoot. I need to make that clear!
  9. Ideally you'd do lots of things with micro budget movies. It is actually better in this case to get 95% done since it can be shown to people that the film is real. I lit how was possible much of the time and when I had time or the ability to do more, what was done seemed right. Does horror have to be overly contrasty? Those shots aren't enough? Horror with handheld work and burning highlights has been done enough, along with the teal blue and overly warm. The director is influenced greatly by 80's horror classics, by the way. It can be more interesting to go against what you think might fit on paper, or a genre. The intention was to take it very seriously but with this kind of film and what is needed from the script, the budget will inherently create some comedy to a modern audience, I will bet. There wasn't much intentional humor, though the movie is aware of it's limitations in some ways. It will be interesting to see how it's edited in the end. When all your gear and tech crew fits into a van....
  10. Just to update the status: One scene is still left to shoot with a known actor but the budget for this one day shoot still hasn't been raised yet. Hopefully things will work out soon enough!
  11. He was joking because it looks like a cool effect of some kind. Yeah, if it was just the one roll, I agree with the cartridge plate.
  12. http://www.arri.com/press/press_english/press_release.html?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=880&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1781&cHash=bae70849d5
  13. Still don't get it. Why not an F3 instead? Costs less, probably better low light performance and as good or better DR, and much better battery life and ease of use. It can also do 60p out if needed, but using the full S35 sensor.
  14. Was it just one roll? That was odd... did you hit the lens at any point? Is it loose at all?
  15. Yeah, the HDR gimmick... build it with a highlight response like film has and you don't really need it. I guess the Alexa already did that, sort of. Someone said the Scarlet wont do over 24p without windowing the sensor. I can see this being a huge problem for a good percentage of people, and would keep me from renting it for several types, or most, shoots. I can't spend 6 hours looking for the specs on their party forum. If someone has a complete list, I'd like to see it. Yeah the F3 is very hard to beat. I just shoot with it, again, on a gig over last weekend and it wasn't even an s-log version and did great for a digital camera. The producer, again, did not want to deal with the red bugs that I and they have experienced, nor the raw post since it just isn't necessary 90% of the time. I had never used the internal cards before but we did on this one and was shocked at how well it held up. Two shots at very late dusk had to be pushed to 12db gain and it was damn clean for having no light left. For the price and ease of post, I still don't see a good competitor, for this month anyway.
  16. Where is that coming from? Shoot with an F3 without an ext. recorder and you'd be very surprised.
  17. Ok, I don't understand the lenses. The new primes might be worth more than the camera, but they offer a 24mm and the next step is a 50mm?? No 32 or 35 seems insane?
  18. If it really is important to you then you will likely be happy you shot on film. Spend your time finding a lab to work with. Some are ridiculous with their prices and don't understand what's happening in today's market. Some do and will make realistic deals. Don't get pricing until you are really ready to roll.
  19. It may be fairly wide but it isn't film or Alexa wide, at all. I want to like this red poop, really, I try to, I just keep having bad luck I guess. Inconsistent, buggy... all has been said before. In some ways larger budget productions benefit the most from having the resources to deal with red. Most indie work seems better off with F3 type cams. I know the last feature I worked on benefited from the simple codec and camera operation. I was there the day Jim opened up that tent in 2006 and I was really into the whole thing at the time. The new Scarlet announcement/price is even making me consider owning a camera again (someone talk me out of it). I guess I should have asked about my sunglasses in 2006. Yeah Keith, give the comments a rest. Are you a working DP, AC or director, by the way? What's the drive?
  20. I thought the Canon stuff was on the 4th after getting an invite to their announcement for either the 4th or 5th. Maybe there's more? I don't feel like it's worth the traffic trouble though. The DSLR in the pic is bound to be a better video version of what they make now... so who is going to buy the big one for $10k+ more since a lot of people (ignorantly) think the 5/7D is already the best thing since sliced bread?
  21. Yeah with red doing the 35mm Scarlet, it will be a hard sell.
×
×
  • Create New...