Jump to content

Jeremy Walton

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  1. Hello, So my setup is this. Canon xa20, hdmi out to Blackmagic hdmi to SDI out. SDI to Marshal V-LCD70XP-3GSDI monitor. If I run color bars out of the camera and calibrate the monitor, can I light from the monitor? I'm using mostly natural light, but I need to get a clean image for coloring. Nothing clipping on the lights or darks. Anytime I've seen people shoot with DSLR's they would always use the external for framing and only judge the lightning by the camera's LCD. I'm using the Marshall monitor for 2.35:1 framing but it has lots of features for lighting, but can I trust it? Especially going through the HDMI to SDI converter? Thanks!
  2. So I work with a colorist right now. He works at a post house and colors on resolve. He's somewhat new to the game, but so am I. We've done a handful of projects together. Mostly on 7D and one red. All small projects, shorts, trailers, spec commercials. Low budget stuff. He usually tells me to get footage as flat as possible. Nothing too dark or too bright. This way he has the most options for coloring. For the most part I agree and understand. When shooting with 7D and having a small crew I get it. There are looks you can save to the 7D to get a flat and even color, etc. But when it comes to a feature I look at it a little differently. There is a specific look I want for my feature. Simple version is a high contrast look. Besides wardrobe, set design, etc. I feel lighting is very important. I find it odd to tell my DP to light everything flat so my colorist has more to work with. I feel I want the look to be saved to the camera, in this case Epic, so I can see what it looks like on set. This way my DP can push the lightning to enhance the look. That seems the right way to go. I used to mess with magic bullet looks with footage I've shot. Theres a film look. Some footage it looked great on. Some footage it looked horrible. For example on a night scene, when I applied the look it got too dark. So having the look in camera on set would of told us we need to add more light to make it work. I heard about resolve 10 and a live feature, grading on set. Thats seems to me what I'm getting at. Anyways I'm looking for opinions or what people have done in the past. Thanks!
  3. Yeah i totally agree. These are the cameras I have access too and will work great for what I want to do. I just looked up films that used similar cameras. I guess when I say studio world Im talking about Captain America or Dark Knight. It just seems odd to me having a 200 Million dollar budget and using some tape for your guidelines. It can't be perfect... it's still a close estimate. All that money and there isn't a better way? Even if its just HD cameras giving you the option of different aspect ratios. At least the cheaper HD cameras.
  4. but is this what they do in the studio world? Do they really have tape on their monitors?
  5. Hello, I'm going to be shooting my first feature in a few months. It's going to be a low budget project. I'll be wearing multiple hats. Even though I will be working with some great people I like to get 2nd opinions on the best way to approach problems. The first issue is I'll be shooting on epic at 2.35:1. I will also be shooting on the Canon XA20 at 16X9 and 5D at 16X9. The problem is knowing what I'm capturing when shooting 16X9. Obviously when it's in AVID you can apply a 2.35:1 mask, but then it's cutting off your footage. I know END OF WATCH used similar cameras and finished 1.85:1. SNITCH used similar cameras and finished 2.35:1. Even BLACK SWAN finished 2.35:1 and shot scenes with the 7D. I know there is no way they just shot and crossed their fingers that nothing would be cut off when shooting 16X9. There must be some workflow when doing this. I don't want to guess. The bulk of the film will be shot on Epic and then I have found footage with the other 2 cameras. I want the shoot 2.35:1 so what should I do? Also any opinions on the Canon XA20. END OF WATCH used the XA10. I wanted to spend around 2000 for a camera with XLR inputs. Also since its found footage i wanted a fixed lense so I can run and gun and not be pulling focus. Thanks for the help.
  6. Im shooting a little teaser trailer. Most likely on DV or HD. Not sure what camera yet. This is a no budget project. So just a camera, no lights, maybe silks, bounces, screens, etc. I need it to look like a foggy night in ireland. So fog machine, thats easy. I assume since I have no lighting this will have to be shot day for night. I looked at some videos I saw on you tube on shooting day for night. It just seems very flat. No highlights at all. Is that what happens when you do this? I want my subject to stand out from the background not fade away in it. Any help would be appreciated.
  7. Okay thanks for the responses. So basically the term HD and 1080 is thrown around to much. Its like they throw HD in there for people to buy. Because how I see it now I would figure if someone said we have SD... HD... and Film I would think good... better... best. But now high end SD cameras are better then some low end HD cameras. It seems HD and 1080 are not what makes the difference. So what qualifies a camera to say they are HD? If it hits 1080 lines of resolution? No matter how they go about getting to that resolution? If I ask a producer what they are shooting on and they say HD... that could mean so much!!! About my film look and run and gun shoot, yes this is a generic term, but I think its understandable. If I watch the new superman I think HD. When I watch The Brothers McMullen I think Film. So thats what I mean by a film look. My run and gun shoot I'll refer to Edward Burns film The Brothers McMullen. He's shooting on film, which is expensive, and it was a gorilla shoot for sure. Very minimal lighting. They tried to shoot outside a lot and use natural light. Maybe just some silks. So this is my approach to what I want to do. The problem is getting that film look using HD. Which Rachel Getting Married did. I just can't use a big camera like the f-900. Hopefully that makes a little more sense.
  8. Ok, I got some questions. I'm out of film school, but since I don't know a whole lot in this field I'll post here for help. Ill break up the different questions in paragraphs. Also I searched the forums, but sometimes the answers were to technical, so please keep it simple. First off. Lets talk HD. I shot a short film on the sony F-900. Which is 1920 X 1080. Now there are people buying the little hand held Sony camcorders they sell at best buy. In the product description it says shoots in HD 1920 X 1080. So these 2 cameras have the same resolution? If they do then if you projected both videos on the big screen wouldnt even the smaller camera look great? I know the F-900 looks fantastic projected on the big screen. During film class we also projected a Canon XL-2 on mini DV which was ok but blown up to a big screen it lost quality. So whats the scoop with these cheap cameras shooting HD? I know there is a big difference... the F-900 having a better lense and a bigger chip. But can someone break this down in very simple terms? Okay next question. A feature I want to shoot I want to have a specific look. Lets say like "Rachel Getting Married". This film was shot on the F-900 with I think HD lenses. It looked like a documentary and like it was shot on HDV or DV. This is the style Im going for. So if this is the style they wanted why not shoot it on a lower quality format? Why spend the money on the F-900? Let's just rule out because they could! Now I shot with the F-900 and it is a crisp sharp HD image. So did they adjust the settings in the camera or was this done in post to give it the lower quality look? This is my thought process... they knew it was going to be put on 35mm for the theatre, so even though they wanted the low quality look it needed to be shot on a high quality camera for the 35mm print. Now this brings us back to my first question about the differences in camera's. Okay next question. I'm sure I won't be able to shoot on the f-900 for my feature. It will be a gorilla shoot for sure. For this reason I wanted a smaller camera, something I can hand held, or throw on a stedi cam with no problem. Let's say the Panasonic HVX-200. I've been around this camera and have seen it on the big screen. Not to bad. What I hate is the video feel. Everything is in focus. So let's put a 35mm adapter on and some prime lenses or just a Zoom lense. Now after reading some posts the conclusion was you need A LOT of light if I were to use this set up. Some people even called this setup "video on steroids". It was said to use the lense it came with. I guess I don't understand that. How can the normal lense look better than the 35mm lenses? Even if you do need more light? Now my situation is a little tricky. I want a film "look" for the feature, but this will be very much a run and gun operation. So lighting will be minimal. Now there comes the problem. I use the 35mm adapter which needs A LOT of light, but the way Im shooting I want to use minimal lighting. So does this mean I just have to choose? Either go with the video look, spend the time to light properly, or upgrade my camera choice? Okay I will stop here. I'm sure this is a lot of info. If I have post in the wrong area or this has been discussed already I apologize. This is my first post and I tried to search as much as possible before posting. Thank you!
  • Create New...