Jump to content

Charlot Vega

Basic Member
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Producer
  • Location
    new york
  1. Wow - thanks Paul - this is very helpful (and those links are excellent info sources, as well). Our photos were scanned as JPG's! I will look into rescanning immediately. Thx again, charlot
  2. Hi, I'm editing a feature documentary (for the first time). This doc is destined for a television/internet audience, but there'll be several theatrical screenings prior - so I want to make sure that the photos being used will look great when projected. As a test, I scanned the same photos at 300dpi and at 600dpi. The ones at 300dpi look far better (though Color Correction can somewhat help the 600dpi scans). Will 300dpi hold up on a big screen?? (We pan/scan every image.) Also - and this may have the same answer - if grabbing pictures off the internet, what would the minimum size be for theatrical projection? Any insight would be appreciated. Thx! charlot
  3. David, thanks again for your input. If we do the Arrilaser, it'll be from SR (or maybe 2k). But I think we'll definitely do some tests comparing that with a straight-up 16-35 blow-up (and, of course, we'll wait to see if the final cut is worth it). So far, I've found that to use an Arrilaser from SR/2k is comparable in price to doing a 16-35 blow-up. But it's the scanning/cleaning/correcting costs that make it a bit intimidating... I thought for a moment that SD might be an option because someone on this site (Frank?) posted some beautiful 16 footage in SD and it appeared to look better than the SR footage he posted. I can see now, though, that it's a different ballgame if you want to bump it up to 35. thanks again, c
  4. Thanks for your guy's input. I think we will end up with telecine SD, and then do some small tests with both direct blow-up to 35, and SR scan to arrilaser 35 (and also maybe 2k). The DI process has not come down much in price (as I, and I'm sure many other low budgeters, thought (and hoped) it would've by now) so a direct blow-up would save a lot of the budget - though we don't want to sacrifice a noticeable amount of image quality. I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the footage will translate well in that option and then decide. Thx again, c
  5. Charlot Vega

    s16 to 35m

    I am trying to determine a post production workflow for s16mm that will deliver the best blow-up to 35mm. We have budgeted for the following choices (besides #4). They are: 1. s16 OCN 2. SD 3. HDCAM SR 4. 2K I realise this is, in part, an aesthetic opinion type of question, and that 2k might be the obvious path to take, but I've also seen some wonderful SD footage (on this website) and I've heard others say that a direct blow-up provides excellent results. Would love to get some feedback, thx, charlot
  6. Thanks, you guys. Very very helpful. c
  7. Does anyone know any major differences between these cameras? (besides rental price... (the plus is less)) thx, c
  8. The choice to use a lot of handheld was not a wrong choice - filmmakers make choices, not 'wrong choices.' However, in my opinion, the execution of said choice was not 'properly' done because half the people I know who saw this film, myself included, thought much of the handheld was irritating. Greengrass - or the producers, by no means would want to alienate half the audience like that. Therefore, etc... Ouch. Lighten up, cranky pants!!! LOL!!!
  9. I suppose this all depends upon one's priorities. These are some very broad statements (using words like 'everyone' and 'every movie would be...'), and frankly, they're way off base. The bottom line is that there is nothing innovative whatsoever about an overly shaky handheld. It's been done many times (LOL)! And further, it could easily be interpreted as self-indulgent filmmaking because it chooses style over story. You must have misread my post... I never said the director made a wrong choice, I merely said that the director's choice (handheld stuff) wasn't 'properly' executed. And it wasn't because of my (LOL again) sensitive equilibrium, it was because the camera was more noticeable than the action!
  10. If the handheld style was properly executed, then this discussion wouldn't exist. Now the term 'properly' can be debated, of course, but I define it as keeping the camera invisible no matter what - the camera should never be stronger than the action. In the scene where Bourne runs down into the metro, for example, the shaky handheld following him was violently stronger than the action. While watching it, I was honestly worried that the cameraman was going to trip down the stairs. That's how aware I was that there was a camera. (Is this not the cardinal sin of (narrative) filmmaking?) A traditionally used handheld, along with good photography, action, and music, will achieve the same - if not better - dramatic tension/effect desired, and without the jackhammer! (eg; Saving Private Ryan). At times, didn't it seem as though Greengrass would tell the cameraman to deliberately shake the camera - just for effect? Many enjoyed this style, so it was successful as such. But for many others, like myself (and my, indeed, sensitive equilibrium) it was too much. It continuously took me out of the movie.
  11. It is true about the handheld shots; There was no motivation for using them in the office-type scenes with no action (style reminded me of "24" circa 2002). And as for the majority of the action scenes, they were poorly executed. Why? Because they were noticeable (and very much so) in all of the above. It's as though the camera became a character (and an annoying one at that!). Too bad really, because this film looked wonderful, was acted very well, and was (by far) the best written script in the trilogy. I wonder if, perhaps, Greengrass only used a monitor to analyze footage - and thereby not 'feeling' the effects a very shaky handheld would have in a theater.
  12. I'm planning on shooting a feature in 16, and I've heard great things about these three ways to shoot. I know what S16 could look like (Hustle & Flow, Squid/Whale, etc.), but I don't know any films which used either R16 Anamorphic or Ultra16 (though I'm certain none have used Ultra16). I'm wondering which of the three will provide the very best wide screen quality (for 35mm and for DVD - both via DI). Thx - Charlot
  13. Has anyone ever worked with a 'sound matte'? I'm wondering just how effective this device is.
  14. Thanks for replying. And that's a very good point about service/parts. I think that alone could be a deciding factor. Do you know of any films that mainly used Angineaux lenses? (the camera i'm looking to buy comes with one.) I know the lens makes a huge difference for the image, so I wonder if there are certain films that a have a certain look because they use a certain lens? (Can a seasoned cinematographer see a film and know that Zeiss lenses were used?)
×
×
  • Create New...