Jump to content

Aapo Lettinen

Premium Member
  • Posts

    2,854
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aapo Lettinen

  1. it's no big deal to spool down the film from 400ft loads to 200ft, you just need a rewinder and a changing bag or darkroom. if having bigger order the stock seller may arrange the spooling for you
  2. yeah the sweeping leads to thinking that it is definitely external and most possibly x-ray. the red layer is the most sensitive in film (least energetic photons) so it is logical that my issue is concentrated on that layer. that exr also had very green image but that is separate issue...
  3. you can use dummy loads on rehearsals so that the actors get used to the camera noise. if it's rental camera you can use somewhat similar sounding other camera or machine (if renting a Konvas for example you can use a power drill in rehearsals :lol: )
  4. some of it still looks more like x ray damage, at 00.27 or so
  5. eBay short ends would be the worst: both unknown history and age AND short length, each roll have to be tested, usually not economical unless the rolls are almost full. like 380ft for 16mm or over 800ft for 35 for example
  6. I have have exactly the same kind of problem with old unknown history 50D EXR except it was pumping red layer, not blue. for example inconstant temperature on one side of the roll or pressure sensitization can do this. the problem faded a little after about half of the roll but was there all the time at some extent. I would not buy second hand films unless in very big factory sealed rolls so one can have a good test of each roll and depend on that the rest is in proper condition then. in case of 16mm, factory sealed 400ft rolls and then winding it down to 100ft loads
  7. thorium oxide was used in the glass elements of some lenses, most notoriously on Super Takumars. Especially the rear elements of those Takumars are very radioactive, my Geiger counter goes mad near them B) it is not dangerous unless you grind the glass to dust and inhale or eat it but the radiation can yellow the glass slowly
  8. Oh, and of course the French New Wave films. And those Robert Bresson movies shot with single focal length are also great
  9. I would definitely watch Tarkovsky movies, all of them are great cinematography wise and have stunning images. Watch at least: The Mirror (especially the dream sequences and colours) Andrei Rublev (some stunning b/w scenes) Ivan's Childhood (great b/w scenes) Stalker (especially the dream sequences, railway "border" scenes and interiors) Solaris The Sacrifice I would watch also other Soviet and Eastern Block films, for example Emil Loteanu's films have some good scenes. Lautarii and Gypsies Are Found Near Heaven have some good old school shots. Kurosawa films are great and also some of the old anamorphic Japanese movies (can't remember titles right now) . I liked also the Dersu Uzala movie's nature shots, it is also shot in the Soviet Union. Kieslowski films are great also.
  10. frame rates, needs less mag adapters in that use, a bit more sturdy... if shooting EXACTLY the same way (including couple of cameras on steadicam at the same time) then it would probably be better to choose LT if not needing to use larger mags very often. Probably they would make it a bit differently on film but who knows
  11. people have made good and bad movies throughout the history, I think the main reason you think that way is because people only remember the classics and other "good stuff". Haven't seen the Jurassic World, the trailer's been enough :rolleyes: maybe the screenwriters and directors have got a little bit more lazy nowadays though, or the producers and investors demand simpler and "dumber" films because they sell better :lol: that's not technological issue, just creative one and can't be corrected even if all the digital gear is destroyed so that we would be technologically back in the "old times"
  12. "only the look is important" is mainly film critics point of view and that's because they only see the final product and don't know how much and what kind of work was needed to make the movie. a film critic might for example think that only real movies are those shot with a mithchell bnc non-reflex without blimp but still completely handheld with zoom lenses. or using 3-strip technicolor cameras on steadicam :lol:
  13. you really should also shoot a lot with both film and digital to understand the practical decisions the crew has made when making the film. For example, if you simply watch the Fury Road movie in a theatre you will probably whine that "this would have been so much better if shot on film!!" but if you even somewhat know the equipment they used (mostly Alexas) and the alternatives for that job which they could have used if shooting film ( Arricam ST + 235 +435 combo OR Millennium XL2 +235+435 combo probably) and watch couple of behind the scenes shots and read some articles, THEN you can probably understand why they chose digital on that movie. Same thing with The Revenant or any other movie. It is easy for film critics to invent great theories how the movies should be done but without actually being there and doing that you can't really know what are the best choices, nor can criticise those people about their decisions and equipment/workflow choices
  14. camera on a tripod, and a good turntable for the jewellery. if you want to replicate the light in the video you can use fresnel or par light from top but you could maybe experiment with large shaped soft reflection made with softer sources and flags and then add some fill and edge light if necessary. I would maybe use more backlight than directly from top to get nicer reflections depending on how much highlights your camera can handle. if the shadows need to be small and therefore you have to key light from top, then you can try to add some very tightly controlled edge or side light which is flagged off of the surface but highlights the jewellery nicely. that way you have single shadows on the surface but much nicer light on jewellery. you can use kino flo:s , led panels, tungsten lights for this. small dedolight type controllable fixtures are great for sharp edge light and sidelight. relatively small lights depending on the size of the subject, if using tungsten you can use for example 100-300w range lights
  15. crosstalk in color channels. it's the same with Kodak vs. Fuji: Fuji has more crosstalk and therefore can usually handle colour temperature changes better but does not have as accurate colours. for example, Fuji shadows of a daylight scene are usually bit more towards cyan than blue, Kodak renders them more towards pale blue. Earlier Red sensors had quite a lot of crosstalk intentionally added probably to fight colour channel noise (Art Adams tests). They haven't been towards colour imaging from the start, they concentrated more on resolution and frame rates and maybe a bit on dynamic range. With the Dragon they have started to notice that most of the stuff shot on their cameras is in colour and therefore one might need better colour response too :rolleyes:
  16. I don't understand what is wrong with shooting both the formats and to decide based on project and not only on personal opinions. You don't need to light all your movies with only 4k hmi:s either, you can use whatever fixture suits your needs :blink: Anyway, I myself choose the shooting format scene by scene basis, for example in the current short we are mixing 4k xavc shot with Sony FS7 and 35mm 4perf 5207 shot with Cameflex Standard, both cropped to 2:1 aspect ratio. (oh that 2:1 ratio is also unconventional, sorry about choosing it project by project basis and not based on public opinions :lol: we don't use instagram filters either B) )
  17. cinematography is half practical decisions and half artistic choices, you can't ignore either one of them when choosing tools and shooting style for a project. your opinion seems to be that film is always better than digital for movies in all cases which is absolutely wrong, you have to consider the pros and cons case by case basis to know which one is better for your project. a film project may also benefit from digital cameras in certain scenes. and if it helps making the movie better who cares? one does not have to always follow some kind of dogma and set up artificial boundaries and rules for oneself when making movies
  18. I was talking about technical differences, film usually has something like 3.5 - 4 stops of dynamic range below middle gray which is not much for low light work
  19. we have to also remember that the viewers don't usually notice nor care what format a movie is shot on (after they have watched it about 5 minutes as long as it looks great and doesn't distract them from the story. I personally think that with digital projection, the Ultra Panavision origination added maybe 15-20% to the Hateful Eight experience for average viewer and the rest is just marketing. Haven't seen it on film, maybe would add more to the experience. and if most of the viewers are watching movies on 2k dcp it is quite difficult to benefit from for example IMAX origination. maybe some added contrast may be there but otherwise it just adds almost nothing to the experience I think. it's a great marketing tool though
  20. here we go again :lol: --- It doesn't really matter which format is technically "better" or "worse". you just have to pick right tools for the job and the best choice varies from project to project. I would not shoot on 65mm over Alexa in the middle of Namibian desert for example, you can do it of course but it is highly unpractical: high temperatures, flying sand and dust, thousands of miles to the nearest lab, horrible logistic challenges to get the dailies on time... if you had the Alpha Lab type service with you it might be ok but otherwise I would definitely go digital. film is great when you have a risk of great amount of overexposure, digital is better when shooting in low light and usually better in tough conditions as long as you have enough batteries for the more power hungry cameras. (if not, then film is usually better) . Digital is also excellent for VFX and green screen because it has lesser noise ('grain' if you like) and usually better shadow response (more dynamic range in shadows and less noise/grain) depending on the equipment and settings used
  21. you might want to slit clearance films or short ends because 16mm short ends are very rare nowadays when most professional productions and tv are switched to digital and the remaining prods are shooting wider stocks, 35mm and 65mm. Factory sealed stock at normal price, certainly not. but if you have cheap excess stock like lots of short ends and you don't need to care about key code numbers or have very small tolerance needs for perfs etc. , then why not :lol:
  22. it would probably be much easier to get Kodak to make a custom batch of b/w for you than color film, much fewer layers and therefore much fewer different emulsions and filters to cook. you should ask them directly. you may have to buy couple of features worth of stock to make it happen if possible at all, but if you get couple of productions involved I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work out
  23. I believe it should be possible if the base material and developing chemicals are the same. They are doing the emulsion (gelatine) stuff in batches and then coating it to the base. I have understood that they are using the same coating machine for all the films so it is really down to the emulsion only. it is probably more than one master roll though, if they have to cook custom emulsions they would want to make a huge amount of it, not just a brick or two. It's just chemistry and following the recipes, the practical batch size would be the problem for them. when cutting the master rolls the sides are unusable but I don't remember how many percent in average that number is of the total width. maybe something between 15 and 25% I believe
  24. connections are usually more important than film education (the main purpose for film schools I think is to get you proper connections which will lead to work) . Connecting with the local DPs is a great start. they may get you some type of department work so you can get started and give you advices how to proceed. you have to get yourself into professional sets to learn from people who are more experienced than you. in the beginning, take whichever job they offer to get you into the set to see how they are working, especially if they pay something for it, and then you can little by little get to the camera or lighting departments when you gain experience and they know you better. for example, when I was in tv/doc school, I was working ONE DAY as a grip in a commercial shoot and learned more about lighting than in TWO MONTHS in the school... working abroad is not a problem as long as you are skilled enough and speak the language relatively well. English may be enough depending on the crew and production. film school helps a lot IF you build your connections and career at the same time like mad. some people make the mistake thinking that it is enough to get a degree from great film school and then you will have career just like that. actually it's more like double or triple the work: you have to get the film degree and at the same time do all the productions you can to build your career like when starting out of nothing without school. the school is only to get you into the basics and get you more connections. it is also for artistic projects which would not be possible to do outside of school environment which offers free equipment and support.
×
×
  • Create New...