Jump to content

Phil Rhodes

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Phil Rhodes last won the day on March 21

Phil Rhodes had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

540 Excellent


About Phil Rhodes

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

76227 profile views
  1. If I'm allowed two, Obvious, but sorry, I am a sci fi fan.
  2. I like stuff which manages somehow to be stylish without having an overt look stamped on it. The natural reaction to working on really low-budget stuff without decent locations and production design is to use lots of contrast in lighting, camera setup and grading, strange camera angles and generally push a look onto it. Desaturation and pushing contrast was common. People do this (I used to do this) because it's less unacceptable than just having it look bland, and because when I started doing it we were mainly shooting on (by modern standards) terrible standard-definition cameras. Cranking up the black level on your DSR-570 was an effective way to make your music video look like something, as opposed to having it look like you'd gone outside and shot whatever was there with a handycam. But it did mean that everything came out looking like a hack, cheap imitation of Saving Private Ryan, regardless of whether that was particularly appropriate to the material. I find it terribly intimidating when people can make stuff look like it was shot in the real world (which gives it so much more impact) and simultaneously look like a proper movie. A good example of the reason for this intimidation is a single behind-the-scenes shot taken during production of The Interpreter, in which, to light a relatively simple sit-and-chat scene in the lobby of the United Nations building in New York, Khondji used what must have been half a megawatt of light suspended from an array of cranes to illuminate a huge picture window at the end of the building. I understand how to do that, it's just mathematics, but the sheer scale of it means that to most people that sort of stuff is on Mars. P
  3. Not to shove a stick in the wheel of this, but what's the position of American crew who are not IATSE members? In the UK, the situation is grim, since current government assistance programs do not apply to people who are taxed at source, which everyone except heads of department generally is.
  4. Straight CTO may work right in rare cases - some of the very best modern stuff - but even then I think you're right, it's to be approached with caution. Lee Filters has the Zircon range which is intended for this sort of situation; I have a test pack of it here and it seems to have a lump more absorption between the turquoise and deep blue, presumably with the intent of notching out some of that LED blueness. My observation was that it works reasonably well in that intent, and avoids creating a horrible yellowish mess as some orange gels will do on LEDs, but it isn't really as simple as throwing CTB on a tungsten light and knowing it'll work. That's fair enough because LEDs aren't nearly well-enough standardised for that degree of certitude ever to be possible, but you can at least achieve something by testing. Otherwise, best not to filter LEDs, to be honest, unless you're after party colour effects.
  5. If there was such a thing as an affordable but real anamorphic look, everyone would be using it, sadly. I have shot with the 1.33:1 SLR magic and, like your opinion of the 2:1, wasn't convinced. Too mushy. Definitely need to be used well stopped-down. Personally I'm not sure it wouldn't be better just to find some old stills primes or something with nice swirly bokeh, and stick a thread on the back of the lens if you're super-desperate for the horizontal flare. Also look at the Schneider Tru-Streak, but I find them a bit over the top. Shoot wider lenses than you usually would and crop. There's the Sirui which I'm trying to get on loan. Don't know about those. Otherwise, the downsides of cheap anamorphic make it non-worthwhile in my view. P
  6. Nobody really hears the music. Nobody really notices cuts. Nobody notices cinematography. But it barely matters, because they do notice if it's wrong, for some very variable value of "wrong."
  7. That's not a problem, that's leverage. We - the international community - are free to take China to the ICJ; China can't be made to turn up, but at that point it's arguably legal for the rest of the world to arbitrarily decide it doesn't owe trillions of dollars to China. This might be a very reasonable thing to do, for more reasons than just the virus. I'm not proposing an absolutist or hasty approach to this sort of thing, but the virus is evidence, if any was needed, that China needs to be gently, cautiously, but forcefully brought to heel. As to banning the markets; this was apparently tried (in I think 2003?) after SARS 1, and despite the authoritarian nature of the Chinese state they essentially failed to do it. The power structure is so centralised and so autocratic that it creates two problems: first, there are a lot of questions over how much really effective power it actually has out in the provinces, and second, nobody will ever tell Beijing anything that might be unpopular. That explains the endless lying and cover-ups. If you want to make excuses for why the Chinese government didn't react better to this, part of the reason is likely that they just didn't know enough, soon enough, simply because everyone in the structure of the organisation is terrified of reporting bad news. P
  8. I find the claim that China's domestic infection rate is now zero to be highly suspect.
  9. Because it isn't that simple. Unending restrictions will kill people just as surely as the virus. I'm not proposing the Trump point of view, nor am I disagreeing (as Jon seems to be) with what's being done right now. What I am suggesting is that at some point, it is sensible to consider the long term health outcomes of ever deeper, ever longer global economic depression, which will also cause deaths. The deaths caused by macroeconomics are less spectacular, less newsworthy than those caused by a virus, and they will create fewer front-page images of sobbing medical staff. I do not seek to minimise or overlook the desperate plight lots of people face. Even so, I would hate to discover in twenty years that we had killed more people with long term consequences of this situation - whether that's economic, medical or anything else - than were killed by the virus itself. In short, what is being done now must be done, but we must not have a blank-cheque mentality to the immediate saving of life if that causes more deaths in the long term. P
  10. There's quite some distance between "at risk groups ending their isolation" and "everyone goes back to normal." For many people, me included, there is a serious question over whether we can realistically expect things to ever go back to normal. I, as with many people here, do work that is entirely discretionary and which is highly unlikely to do well in a recession or even depression. But here's the thing. If I had personally caused however many deaths are currently shown here I would expect to spend the rest of my life in prison even if I had done it accidentally, with no reason to suspect my actions might cause a problem. If I had done it having been warned not to do it, having had several close calls previously, I would expect the situation to be, if possible, even more serious. There is culpability here and I would see that culpability pursued for all kinds of reasons. Mainly, though, in the absence of any likelihood that the international community can meaningfully hold China to account, I'd see this pursued to minimise the chances of it happening again. P
  11. Also do mercury vapour. But the problem is they don't end up looking like they do on film, on digital cameras, so you end up gelling them cyan anyway. And make sure that mains cable you have there is adequate for a 90W load!
  12. The reason this isn't simple is that economic hardship also causes deaths. I'm not talking up the Trump position - heaven forfend - and what's being done right now is probably appropriate right now, but a medium-term reaction to this should not be based solely on short-term preservation of life. Watching people dying in hospital corridors is horrifying. Knowing that they have died more privately, over years, is less horrifying. But it's still deaths. P
  13. No "but" required. What you say is absolutely true. The only reason this society exists in its current form is luck. I would like to see us take measures to reduce the amount of luck required to avoid a recurrence of this situation. This may mean somebody having a quiet word with the Chinese government at some point about their attitude to health and safety, giving what they have caused.
  • Create New...