Dylan Kress

Thanks a ton Dominic, Just ordered your book this morning. I'm excited to experiment with the various techniques and workflows. So I'm guessing you do an offline edit before you do an answer print??? Then you print only what you need for the answer??? In your opinion do you think films will continue to be made without going thru a DI or do you think it will become cheap enough where it will become a common part of the film workflow?

Any places that you would recommend checking??? I'm sure going to a place like FotoKem will be out of the question but I really want to find a place that will help break me into the process and guide me in the right direction. It's going to be more of a learning experience so I want to make sure it's a place that doesn't mind holding my hand thru the process :rolleyes:

I'm looking to get some estimated costs to get an idea for what I should be expecting to pay for a short film. It would be great to compare the cost of transferring to HD agains the costs of transferring 2k. I know this can vary drastically depending on where you go, but any info would be GREATLY appreciated! Thanks guys. This forum is amazing.

Hey guys, Shooting some tests and I'm wondering what I should expect to pay to get 1600' of Fuji Vivid 160 processed and transfered to HD DPX files assuming I provide the hard drive. Thanks, Dylan

It really depends on the project, but in my honest opinion I think the 5D is going to present you more trouble than it's worth in post production. Not only do you have to spend a bunch of time transferring and encoding all the footage, but once you've done all that you'll be left with highly compressed material that really can't be corrected or adjusted at all. Granted you do have a larger image sensor, but I still believe the 5D still isn't a camera that was built for the demanding workflow of filmmaking. Just my opinion, but the 5D can really become a pain in the butt in post. I hope this helps your decision. Later, Dylan

No problem, The camera you use definitely depends on the scope of the project. If you're simply looking for an affordable camera that shoots HD with an easy workflow, the Panasonic HVX is probably right up your alley. There are a few others that are in this same range, but I've used the HVX many times and it really is a great camera for it's price point. Another camera you may want to look into is the JVC GY-HD250U. Another great camera in the same price range that allows for interchangeable lenses. A big plus for cameras in this range. Either one of these will work perfectly with Final Cut as should almost any camera you throw at it. You just have to do a little homework and know what you're doing. Hope that helps, Dylan

Yea, I'm not too sure why the 5D is getting all the hype it is, but the truth is that it's not good for much more than posting decent looking videos to youtube (assuming you have some nice lenses to go with it). It's a great still picture camera but it really doesn't offer the control you need to really push your image to the max. H.264 prides itself in offering the lowest bit rates possible for your images which is exactly the opposite of what you want when it comes to manipulating that image in any way. Less data = less information in the color space, data rate, bit-depth, etc... Although it offers a nice image (for an somewhat affordable camera), it simply isn't built to shoot video for any other format than the web. That's my opinion anyways...

Dang, A quick search and I don't see it anywhere. I'll keep an eye open. Thanks for the suggestions guys. Later, D

2010 has been an interesting year for me. I started the year with a full time job designing and animating for a pretty big post production company in the Phoenix area. After a while I was feeling something missing and realized that I needed to get myself back on the production side of things. After leaving my job, I quickly realized that work was pretty hard to come by and your confidence in your skills quickly disappears when you don't practice often... Not to mention how hard it was when all of my old buddies from the production side moved to LA. Now I'm kind of finding myself in a limbo where I want to work more than anything in the world, but can't find a team of people to work with. I've had to make due by picking up animation gigs just to pay the bills, but I can't stop day dreaming about getting on set... I guess all there is to do is keep learning and hope I meet the right people to do something cool... Only time will tell I suppose

Hey Richard, Were you using FCP when you had the problems in the past? It sounds like you may have been having issues with your settings because Final Cut can import just about anything...

Hey guys, I'm looking for a good book or article on cinema lenses and the various formats in which they are used. I have a basic understanding, but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the math behind it all. I'm just looking for a good place to start. Any suggestions? Thanks a ton, Dylan

Christian, Thanks a ton for the recommendations. I'll run out to see if I can find 'em anywhere. Definitely interested in reading up on this subject. Thanks again, Dylan

okay, so it gives you one last chance to make final basic adjustments before you're stuck with what you've got essentially... So it's not as powerful as a DI if you plan to make lots of adjustments? Can you skip the whole process of digitizing your film (other than dailies of course) by color-timing and printing? And if that's the case you must be watching a projection of the processed negative to determine what you need to correct when printing??? I may be way off here...

What do you mean by 'timing the color and brightness?'

Sorry I just realized how retarded that question was. LOL. I should have just looked that up on my own. Found my answer tho. :rolleyes:

Is print stock similar to shooting stock in that it is uses light sensitive emulsion or are you actually printing a transparent ink onto the film?

Seems like a weird gimmick to me. Don't know how that lends itself to the theme of the show but hey, who are we to say so? Gotta put it to use if it's laying around set right? :P

Cool. Thanks for all the help guys. I'm excited to shoot some stuff and get more familiar with the transfer process.

The whole processing and transfer process just seems like a lot to wrap your brain around. I guess it's just one of those things you need to experience to really understand. When you do a 2k transfer you're obviously not transferring to an HD tape. Are they transferring to an analog format or straight to a computer?

Is there a difference in the process between scanning to SD (for dailies) and scanning to 2k for your final DI other than the obvious size of the image? (i.e. the way they scan it, etc...) I should probably just call a processing house but if anyone cares to elaborate or point me to another discussion that'd be a huge help.

Okay so I did some homework and found some uncorrected shots in the outtakes... A bit of computer magic and we have a side by side comparison. The images on the top are the uncorrected ones. I have a bunch more of these but I'll post a few of the good ones. You can really see how much they punched up the saturation in this one. What a beautiful image. This one really surprised me. The uncorrected footage almost looks out of focus. You guys think it looks sharper in the corrected shot because of the added contrast? Gorgeous. The skin tones on this changed completely! It's strange but after looking at all of these side by side it looks like most of the uncorrected images are a little soft. Can anybody lend some insight into what they're doing in the post process to bring in the sharpness and clarity of these final images?

What's up guys? Just wanted to start a little discussion about one of my favorite flicks of all time; Amelie. Love the story... Love the imagery... Love the colors and tones of the world the filmmakers have created. I know they digitally color timed the film but I'm curious how much was really done in the DI process. I've been experimenting with film quit a bit lately and can't seem to get anything quite as colorful and vibrant as what they have created. I have a feeling the immaculate art direction of the film has a lot to do with why it's so damn gorgeous. Here are a few screen grabs: I'd love to know your guys' thoughts on how they captured images like these (i.e. film stock, gels, filters, etc...). I'd love to see before/after footage of the DI process. Any insight is helpful. Thanks in advance, Dylan

She's a beauty... Still have it for sale?

Hey guys, Small production company working on getting a TV series off the ground. We're looking to find a Director of Photography to help bring the vision to life. We're hoping to start production in a couple months. We'll be shooting on the RED. E-mail dylankress@gmail.com if you're interested in hearing more about the project. I look forward to talking with you, Dylan

I just finished production on a 72 hour film festival where we decided to go black and white. Honestly it was one of the best experiences I've had working thus far. It was just an illuminating experience to see this whole thing come together, and IMO it wouldn't have worked as well in color. Plus I got an award for cinematography so I'm pretty excited about the whole thing. :D When it comes to shooting B&W I def. think there's a time and a place to do it correctly , but SO many great movies were shot B&W way before color was even around, so I guess the decision ultimately comes to telling the story in the best way possible. -Dylan p.s.- If you guys wanna check out the film we did for the festival you can find it at www.fallenblue.mikewach.com thanks for the support